When evaluating the connectivity landscape, Marc Korthaus (Co-Founder) and Theo Voss (CEO and Co-Founder) realised that Inter.link does not fit within the existing categories of Tier 1, 2, and 3 Internet Service Providers.
Inter.link’s network size, technology, and above all, approach to interconnection meant that a new category name was needed to show how Inter.link stands apart.
In this article, Theo Voss explains what makes Inter.link a Tier 2+ Internet Service Provider.
How Tier 1 providers approach interconnection
Tier 1 ISPs normally plan their network from a dual technican and commercial point of view. Any type of interconnection with any other network is evaluated against both technical policy and commercials.
This means that the focus on quality connectivity for end-users can easily stop being a priority.
Tier 1 providers only start negotiating upgrades for their capacity when they absolutely have to and when commercial aspects are met, therefore packet loss and other issues can occur for customers because the volume of traffic exceeds the actual capacity when peering with another provider.
But when ISPs negotiate upgrades, they do not do this based on customer demand. They might even reduce capacities between each others network in case the ratio of traffic is not balanced This leads to so-called peering wars. For example, currently in Europe Tier1 providers Arelion and NTT aren’t interconnected and recently, Cogent has depeered NTT.
Instead of upgrading because customers need it, they typically discuss:
- how upgrading benefits them
- how much they would need to pay to upgrade
- how much they are paid by interconnection partners
- the ratio of the traffic
- how this impacts their global commercials and traffic distribution
In many cases, Tier 1 providers approach interconnection in a way that it does not benefit, but rather negatively impacts the end customer. For instance, there are certain providers that keep interconnection expensive which has led to them not interconnecting with sufficient capacity.
These providers keep ports congested because they don’t provide enough ports necessary to transfer all the traffic. This causes packet loss or other issues for their customers.
This issue is very specific for Tier 1 providers because due to their size, mostly selling IP and Ethernet services, and due to the cone of their network and other factors, for them it’s crucial to make money with interconnection.
This is especially true for Tier 1 providers that have been in a position for years or decades where they have always had high prices for interconnection.
How Tier 2 providers approach interconnection
A Tier 2 provider always tries to get the best peering and interconnection where possible, and this is not just through an internet exchange point or a PNI because in some cases remote peering can also be utilised. However, Tier 2s are usually relatively small. They carry few prefixes and a lower volume of traffic.
Inter.link is not aiming to become a Tier 1 ISP
Comparing Inter.link with Tier 2 providers would not be fair because many Tier 2 providers are very small, with total network capacities of only 10G.
However, Inter.link is not aiming to become a Tier 1 provider. This is because the way Inter.link approaches interconnection will always be fundamentally different from the Tier 1 providers’ approach.
Tier 2+ combines quality and flexibility with volume
Inter.link is building a new space in the middle with the advantages of both Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Inter.link wants to become bigger in terms of traffic and prefixes, and to be top of mind for interconnection in Europe. However, as this happens, Inter.link will keep the foundational principles of a Tier 2 provider and continue to make the right connections for the best quality.
Of course, running a network at a large scale requires some traffic engineering and policy decisions or interconnection decisions to be made in a certain way because the network, the traffic levels, and the cost of interconnection is high.
This means that Inter.link is not free of all the challenges that Tier 1s face, but the mission is still to prioritize good quality customer performance with peering at a large scale and with large volumes of traffic.
Fast growth can bring a new challenge for interconnection
One of the challenges for expanding ISPs is that when growing quickly and extensively, interconnection can be more challenging, especially compared to the ease of interconnection experienced by smaller Tier 2s.
This is because when capacity is taken into consideration, providers need to be more careful with how traffic is distributed.
When the traffic volume is low compared to the actual capacity of internet exchange points (IXPs), the traffic distribution doesn’t really matter since there is enough capacity between the two IXPs.
However, when the traffic volume is almost at the capacity for each IXP, utilization gains relevance because you are utilizing these exchanges to a degree where a port failure could mean you do not have enough capacity on other ports to absorb the rest of the traffic.
This requires the engineering team to think carefully about where the traffic goes because the volumes are so big. In these situations, sometimes it’s really challenging to improve or interconnect just based on a customer request, due to the cost of adding meaningful additional capacity.
Why Tier 1s don’t listen to customer requests
The interconnection challenges described above are even more pronounced with Tier 1s due to their size. Managing capacity becomes very complex. A customer interconnection request is unlikely to be considered. It’s just easier to say no.
As such, the peering manager role for a Tier 1 is generally quite divorced from customers. They’re managing the network from a global versus customer-oriented point of view. They’re typically not interested in what one single customer wants.
Inter.link puts the customer first, even at scale
Inter.link works to make the right interconnection possible for the sake of the customer.
If capacity is required towards a certain network, Inter.link will always work with that network and try to establish a settlement-free interconnection between the two networks.
This settlement-free interconnection can become a paid interconnection at some point if for example, someone is sending Inter.link more traffic than we’re sending to them or the other way around. Yet, we always do this with the market price or market value in mind, and also consider the direction of the traffic and the interest of the customer.
Keeping these customer-centric principles in mind and holding to them is something that Tier 1s don’t do. When a provider becomes Tier 1, they leave behind free settlement and free interconnection, and move completely towards commercially and politically motivated interconnection.
Sticking to our customer-centric priorities even at scale is what makes Inter.link a Tier 2+ Internet Service Provider.
We work to get the best of both worlds from Tier 1s and Tier 2s: The advantages of scale whilst maintaining customer-centric flexibility for interconnection.