Talk:Core router

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I am not sure why core router companies are listed on this page. Considering removing the fail list at least. Comments? --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's relevant and useful. The list of failed companies illustrates how tough the core router market is (much like the supercomputer market) and points to some pretty interesting designs like Caspian's Apeiro flow based router. Adamantios 13:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "core router" arose in the dot.bomb era. This article was initially intended to capture the history of this era. The list of failed companies was intended as an objective way to capture the history. I worked for two of the failed companies. -Arch dude 14:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am fine with this then. Would you please help me with the term: Core. I know exaclty what you are talking about here. However another editor has added the term Core to the Router article, describing as it would in ref. to the ISP AS. To avoid a problem here I thought it best to create a disambiguation page, and listed it on the top of the article. Would you please confirm you agree with this. Thanks! --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your solution is perfectly acceptable. It is not what I would have done, but it works quite well. I appreciate your question, as it shows that you are looking for consensus. Please continue to be bold and fix problems when you see them. -Arch dude 13:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How many core routers are there in operation? Who operates them? Where are they located? The article could do with including this information, if anyone is able to help. Old Man of Storr (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ownership of these routers is key as they effectively make/control the internet. Cisco makes and sells much of the kit but as the article moves towards saying, the kit has become a commodity. The issue of greatest interest here I suggest is who owns and controls these core routers? Who specifies them? Who are Cisco's internet backbone clients? What agreements exist between telecoms compoanies that own the cable and wire and transmitters etc and the core switch gear?

LookingGlass (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the core is typically the large telcos. While they provide the bandwidth for the Internet, this should NOT be confused with providing the content that drives the Internet, nor does it imply any kind of effective control over the Internet. Largely, the telcos are simply bandwidth vendors. They are also the ones who specify the gear. Cisco's customer list is, of course, confidential. The agreements between customers and vendors vary widely, but as the market is a significant amount of revenue and the number of customers is small, they tend to be very influential. Tony1athome (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

217.23.233.124 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC): Where the article cites Verizon as the highest tier provider, consider the introduction of Google Fiber? Or perhaps cite Verizon as the highest tier as of <date>?[reply]

Explanation for beginners

"support multiple telecommunications interfaces"

Could someone plaese explain what that means? Wikipedia should be readable also for non-techies.

Is "telecommunications interface" a generic term / superordinate concept that includes IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.209.241 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]