Re: Cogent-TATA peering dispute?

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

> On May 18, 2024, at 19:30, Ray Bellis <ray () bellis me uk> wrote:
> According to their PeeringDB entry, at all of the 23 IXPs listed they only peer via route servers and not bilaterally.
> As such I don't think it's entirely fair to call them out on this.

I’m not “calling them out,” I’m merely repeating their own assertion of their status, as they’ve put it on PeeringDB.  
They say they have a selective peering policy rather than an open peering policy.  The other have open peering 
policies.  The question was regarding open peering policies, and that’s what I was addressing.  It’s not for me to 
judge whether organizations policies are what they claim, I’m only addressing the claim.

> Most of L-root's systems are hosted within transit networks, and not at IXPs.  As such they have no control over 
> additional peerings.

Speaking for PCH, we explicitly do not do that because it aggravates the digital divide.  (In addition to being a 
technically inferior solution, but it’s an easy shortcut to “having lots of dots on the map,” if that’s your goal.)  
Placing a server within a market-dominant network gives that network an additional anticompetitive lever to use to 
compel payments from its competitors.  For a for-profit network, that’s a perfectly reasonable trade-off to make, and 
is undoubtedly good for short-term shareholder returns.  For something that should be public-benefit network, it’s 
counterproductive.

Anyway, I thought the conversation was about Cogent, which is about as clearly in the for-profit camp as it’s possible 
to be.

                                -Bill