Matt, Why would HE hijack Cogent's IP space? That would end in a lawsuit and potentially even more de-peering between them.
Ryan Hamel ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech....@nanog.org> on behalf of Matt Corallo <na...@as397444.net> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:32 AM To: Bryan Fields <br...@bryanfields.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disconcerting? Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. On 11/8/23 2:23 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: > On 11/8/23 2:25 PM, o...@delong.com wrote: >> Seems irresponsible to me that a root-server (or other critical DNS >> provider) would engage in a >> peering war to the exclusion of workable DNS. > > I've brought this up before and the root servers are not really an IANA > function IIRC. There's not > much governance over them, other than what's on root-servers.org. I think a > case could be made that > C is in violation of the polices on that page and RFC 7720 section 3. > > Basically none of the root servers want to change this and thus it's never > going to change. DNS > will fail and select another to talk to, and things will still work. At what point does HE just host a second C root and announce the same IPv6s? Might irritate Cogent, but its not more "bad" than Cogent failing to uphold the requirements for running a root server. Matt
