On 5/18/24 08:56, Saku Ytti wrote:
As long as our toolbox only has a capitalist hammer, peering disputes
are going to be a thing. Cogent has outlived many of its peering
dispute history partners. They are the grandfather of disruptive
transit pricing, which many others have struggled to meet p
> On May 18, 2024, at 08:56, Saku Ytti 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
On Sat, 18 May 2024 at 10:38, Bill Woodcock 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 th
On 18/05/2024 08:38, Bill Woodcock wrote:
L-root, ICANN, selective: https://www.dns.icann.org/imrs/
...
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.
IIUC, most of L-root
On Thursday, May 16, 2024 6:18 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> On 5/16/24 16:05, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> The FCC has spent the last several years hounding us voice providers
>> over spam calls. They've implemented laws. They have required us to
>> do paperwork. Have they been successful in that task
John Levine said:
> It appears that Brandon Martin said:
>>I think the issue with their lack of effectiveness on spam calls is due
>>to the comparatively small number of players in the PSTN (speaking of
>>both classic TDM and modern IP voice-carrying and signaling networks)
>>world allowing lots
On 5/18/24 9:25 PM, Jason Baugher wrote:
As much as most of us would like to be 100% SIP, it's the big guys
holding us back with legacy TDM networks and lata tandems.
---
While not a Big Guy, Hawaiian Telcom is actively removing all t
> On May 18, 2024, at 19:30, Ray Bellis 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
> On May 18, 2024, at 11:55, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2024 at 10:38, Bill Woodcock 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 nameserv
9 matches
Mail list logo
