> On May 18, 2024, at 08:56, Saku Ytti <s...@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
