> On May 18, 2024, at 19:30, Ray Bellis <r...@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

Reply via email to