Transit provider (TP) sounds good to me.
Since this document was originally meant to cover Network Elements I would assert networks with a large number of NEs are more complex. In most cases such a network will be compromised of multiple vendor's and models of NE's. (Edge, Border, Core, Aggregation ...). So my definition complexity would be something like this
Complexity = N * (#routers * #vendors * #models)
Donald.Smith@qwest.com GCIA http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xAF00EDCC pgpFingerPrint:9CE4 227B B9B3 601F B500 D076 43F1 0767 AF00 EDCC Brian Kernighan jokingly named it the Uniplexed Information and Computing System (UNICS) as a pun on MULTICS.
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-opsec@psg.com [mailto:owner-opsec@psg.com] On > Behalf Of David Meyer > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:36 AM > To: Smith, Donald > Cc: gmj@pobox.com; Ross Callon; opsec@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: Straw-man charter > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 09:02:39AM -0600, Smith, Donald wrote: > >> NSP should imply additional Networking services beyond what an ISP > >> traditionally offers. The reason for a split like this is > NSP's tend > >> to have LARGE FAST backbones and LOTS of routers. > >> ISP's may have a single router with fairly low bandwidth. > They may also > >> sell basically ONE service (dialup, wireless ...). > > This generalization really doesn't seem hold, and at best > is a moving target (assets are acquired, divested, etc over > time). The Tier 1..n classification isn't clean either > (what exactly comprises a tier 1? Member of the skitter > core? Other?). > > >> I would be just as willing to call such providers SSP > (small service > >> providers | simple service providers) but do not want to insult > >> anyone or any company. > >> > >> I think the reason for a split like this would be because of the > >> order of magnitude difference in complexity when you have > to manage > >> 100's of routers in lots of cities with 1000's of dynamic routes > >> (NSP) vs 1 (or > >> 10) router(s) a single static default route to an NSP (SSP|ISP). > > First, how is complexity measured (complexity is a term > that gets thrown around a lot and I'm just wondering what > you mean by it)? And is it really true that managing a > backbone with say, 1000s of routers is more "complex" > (for whatever definition) that managing a large broadband > installation that might have 100Ks of users? > > >> George do we want/need a category for CSP Content service > provider. > >> Some ISP's are moving away from providing ANY network > connectivity. > >> They provide content and host mail/ personal web pages > etc... but do > >> NOT sell the customer any network access. This model is becoming > >> popular. They would not be doing routing for the customers. > > Also a good question: Does an ASP/CSP qualify as an ISP, > and if so, what is the definition of "ISP" (or even NSP) > that covers this? I'm not sure. Maybe transport provider > is a cleaner term for SPs providing L1-L3 service. > > >> Finally I think ATM providers and other L1, L1, L3 network > providers > >> could be covered by the NSP class but am not sure if the > model will > >> fit. > > Transport provider? > > Dave > > >