Re: Cogent-TATA peering dispute?

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

> On May 18, 2024, at 08:56, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
> What are we asking in terms of your proposed policy change of allowing
> host a root DNS? You must peer with everyone and anyone, at any terms?

Well, putting aside Cogent per se, and focusing on this much more interesting issue, I would suggest that this is 
already a well-established best practice, and reasonable in principle:

A-root, Verisign, open peering policy: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/873

B-root, USC/ISI, doesn’t really peer, but open in principle: https://b.root-servers.org/statements/response.html

C-root, Cogent, selective, not obviously published?

D-root, UMD, open peering policy: https://www.pch.net/peering

E-root, NASA, open peering policy: https://www.pch.net/peering

F-root, ISC, open peering policy: https://www.isc.org/froot-peering/

G-root, DISA, doesn’t really peer

H-root, US Army, doesn’t really peer

I-root, NetNod, open peering policy: https://www.netnod.se/about-netnod/peering-with-netnod

J-root, Verisign, open peering policy: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/873

K-root, RIPE, open peering policy: https://www.ripe.net/analyse/dns/k-root/k-root-peering-policy/

L-root, ICANN, selective: https://www.dns.icann.org/imrs/

M-root, WIDE, open peering policy: https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/7500

So, of the thirteen root nameservers, ten are potentially available for interconnection, and of those, only two, Cogent 
and ICANN, don’t have open peering policies.

So, yes, I think having an open peering policy should be a requirement for operating a root nameserver.  I don’t think 
there’s any defensible rationale that would support root nameservers being a private benefit to be used to worsen the 
digital divide or create leverage in commercial disputes.  They should, indeed, all be accessible to all networks.

                                -Bill