Re: Cogent-TATA peering dispute?

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

> On May 18, 2024, at 11:55, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2024 at 10:38, Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What type of network reach is required? Is single pop enough, that as long as you have single pop, and open policy to 
> peer with anyone who wants to connect to your pop, you qualify?

The topic of the conversation was Cogent, and this question doesn’t apply to them.  We have to recognize that there are 
a limited number of public-benefit entities with the mission or budget to operate global-scale Internet public 
infrastructure, and that’s ok; it is what it is.  Different models give us diversity and resilience, and that’s good.  
The thought I was expressing was about a moral principle that costs nothing to adhere to, I’m not interested in drawing 
a “you must be this tall to ride” line.

                                -Bill