RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
NDA or not.NO WAY to the biz plan would be my vote Chuck Moses High Desert Wireless Broadband Communication 16922 Airport Blvd # 3 Mojave CA 93501 661 824 3431 office 818 406 6818 cell -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:22 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Did you do an NDA? What type of financial documents did provide? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:16 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? > > We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have > ever asked for a business plan. > > -Matt > > Dan Metcalf wrote: > > >Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop > provider, > >they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial > statement > >before going forward --- > > > >Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't > > > >Thanks > > > >Dan > > > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > >>Of Tony Weasler > >>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM > >>To: WISPA General List > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 > >> > >>On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: > >> > >> > >>>>To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated > >>>>between L3 and Cogent. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. > >>> > >>> > >>Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: > >> > >>"Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as > >>permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both > >>Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously > >>existing interconnection agreement." > >>http://status.cogentco.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >>>>There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is > >>>>blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent > >>>>pays $$ for.) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. > >>>To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. > >>>When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer > >>>labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to > >>>Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the > >>>traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our > >>>network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the > >>>data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that > >>>Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is > >>>highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's > >>>link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction > >>>across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's > >>>network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, > >>>it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's > >>>network from us as their client. > >>> > >>> > >>This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because > >>Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of > >>them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because > >>Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from > >>reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two > >>scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't > >>see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I > >>saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does > >>that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't > >>reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but > >>that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find > >>a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables > >
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Hey Matt - give me a call tomorrow morning please - 1-800-774-0320 JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have ever asked for a business plan. -Matt Dan Metcalf wrote: >Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop >provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and >financial statement before going forward --- > >Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't > >Thanks > >Dan > > > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Behalf Of Tony Weasler >>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 >> >>On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: >> >> >>>>To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated >>>>between L3 and Cogent. >>>> >>>> >>>I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. >>> >>> >>Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: >> >>"Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as >>permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both >>Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously >>existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ >> >> >> >>>>There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is >>>>blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent >>>>pays $$ for.) >>>> >>>> >>>There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make >>>more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, >>>the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to >>>verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the >>>actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for >>>that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it >>>does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we >>>enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is >>>blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly >>>unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, >>>we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across >>>Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's >>>network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to >>>Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to >>>Cogent's network from us as their client. >>> >>> >>This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because >>Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of >>them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because >>Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from >>reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two >>scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't >>see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I >>saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does >>that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't >>reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but >>that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find >>a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables >>from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link >>to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an >>announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. >> >>I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have >>resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their >>customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I >>replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public >>statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people >>on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be >>entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am
Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
if need be, post a bond. Aubrey Wells wrote: How is it none of their business? The business plan is none of their business, but the financials certainly are. Just like any other lease agreement you enter in to (car, house, apartment, whatever) they want to make sure you can pay up before they give you the lease. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? None of their business. We had a request like this, and claimed that it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request for such information. Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial statements are no one's business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list shoul
Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Depends on the value of the roof top. Basically if they are asking for this, it is because in the past, 90% of their tenants never paid their roof rent because of bankruptcies and such. They just want to be certain that they can count on you succeeding, so they get paid. By giving them a business plan, it shows that you have thought about how you will succeed, and are aware how much sales you need to make to pay the roof fees. However, if they ask for it, they should also not have a problem signing a non-compete or non-disclosure relating to your business plan. Be certain this is the reason, before you give them business plans. Otherwise, they could use the business plan against you to justify demanding a larger rent. Another way to handle the problem, is to say your business plan is none of their business, and confidential information, however you understand their concern, and instead you are willing to mkae provisions to protect that the Landlord gets paid. For example, you could give them a deposit, or pre-pay the lease for the first 6 months, or something like that. When you go to lease an apartment or office space, they don't have a right to see your business plan or financials. However, they do have the right to confirm your ability to pay the rent. A roof top leasor is no different. Their space has value, and they do not want to chew up time and legal hours righting contracts for short term relationships. Nor do they want to give their tenants recommendations to a provider that will fail in 6 months. There is an implied indorsement the second the landlord allows you on his roof. Personally, I would not give them a business plan, but it is you responsibilty to prove your ability to be a good tenant, and you need to find a way to do that, if the roof space you are applying for is of value to you. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Dan Metcalf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: >> To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated >> between L3 and Cogent. > > I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ >> There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is >> blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent >> pays $$ for.) > > There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. > To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. > When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer > labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to > Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the > traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our > network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send > the > data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that > Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is > highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's > link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction > across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's > network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to > Verio, > it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's > network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be eas
Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
I would offer them credit references, your landlord, suppliers that you have net 10 or net 30 accounts with and so on. Nothing more. Blair Aubrey Wells wrote: How is it none of their business? The business plan is none of their business, but the financials certainly are. Just like any other lease agreement you enter in to (car, house, apartment, whatever) they want to make sure you can pay up before they give you the lease. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? None of their business. We had a request like this, and claimed that it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request for such information. Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial statements are no one's business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
How is it none of their business? The business plan is none of their business, but the financials certainly are. Just like any other lease agreement you enter in to (car, house, apartment, whatever) they want to make sure you can pay up before they give you the lease. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? None of their business. We had a request like this, and claimed that it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request for such information. Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial statements are no one's business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Tony Weasler > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 > > On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: > >> To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated > >> between L3 and Cogent. > > > > I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. > > Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: > > "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as > permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both > Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously > existing interconnection agreement." > http://status.cogentco.com/ > > >> There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent > >> traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) > > > > There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. > > To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. > > When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer > > labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to > > Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the > > traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our > > network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send > > the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring > > that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which > > is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through > > Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that > > direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further > > into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked > > traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at > > the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. > > This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because > Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of > them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because > Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from > reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two > scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't > see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I > saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does > that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't > reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but > that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find > a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables > from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link > to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an > announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. > > I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have > resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their > customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I > replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public > statement which directly contradicted yours and I thou
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
None of their business. We had a request like this, and claimed that it was unfair business practice, and the landlord dropped their request for such information. Probably ended up costing us that extra $100 / month but our financial statements are no one's business. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Metcalf Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Tony Weasler > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 > > On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: > >> To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated > >> between L3 and Cogent. > > > > I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. > > Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: > > "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as > permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both > Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously > existing interconnection agreement." > http://status.cogentco.com/ > > >> There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent > >> traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) > > > > There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. > > To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. > > When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer > > labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to > > Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the > > traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our > > network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send > > the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring > > that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which > > is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through > > Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that > > direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further > > into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked > > traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at > > the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. > > This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because > Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of > them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because > Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from > reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two > scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't > see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I > saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does > that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't > reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but > that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find > a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables > from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link > to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an > announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. > > I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have > resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their > customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I > replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public > statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people > on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be > entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am > confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to > determine that. > > I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach > the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that > the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in > favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think > of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale > prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. > > > >> It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it > >> would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent > >> to/from L3's network. T
RE: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
Did you do an NDA? What type of financial documents did provide? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:16 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing? > > We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have > ever asked for a business plan. > > -Matt > > Dan Metcalf wrote: > > >Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop > provider, > >they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial > statement > >before going forward --- > > > >Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't > > > >Thanks > > > >Dan > > > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > >>Of Tony Weasler > >>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM > >>To: WISPA General List > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 > >> > >>On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: > >> > >> > >>>>To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated > >>>>between L3 and Cogent. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. > >>> > >>> > >>Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: > >> > >>"Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as > >>permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both > >>Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously > >>existing interconnection agreement." > >>http://status.cogentco.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >>>>There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is > >>>>blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent > >>>>pays $$ for.) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. > >>>To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. > >>>When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer > >>>labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to > >>>Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the > >>>traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our > >>>network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the > >>>data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that > >>>Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is > >>>highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's > >>>link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction > >>>across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's > >>>network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, > >>>it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's > >>>network from us as their client. > >>> > >>> > >>This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because > >>Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of > >>them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because > >>Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from > >>reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two > >>scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't > >>see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I > >>saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does > >>that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't > >>reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but > >>that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find > >>a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables > >>from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link > >>to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an > >>announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. > >> > >>I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have > >>resolved this before it came to reducing c
Re: [WISPA] rooftop leasing?
We have certainly had landlords question us financially, but none have ever asked for a business plan. -Matt Dan Metcalf wrote: Aftering spending almost 8 weeks trying to get a lease with a rooftop provider, they come back at us with a request for a business plan and financial statement before going forward --- Thoughts? Has anybody had a request like this before? We haven't Thanks Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Weasler Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 On 10/6/2005 1:03 PM, Tom DeReggi created: To set the record straight, no peering agreements were violated between L3 and Cogent. I heard otherwise, however I can't prove that. Cogent on their own web site said that agreements were not violated: "Level 3 terminated its peering with Cogent without cause (as permitted under its peering agreement with Cogent) even though both Cogent and Level 3 remained in full compliance with the previously existing interconnection agreement." http://status.cogentco.com/ There is also no confirmed evidence that L3 is blocking Cogent traffic through Cogent's Verio transit (which Cogent pays $$ for.) There was evidence. I wish I saved my traceroutes yesterday. To make more clear, Cogent is our backbone. When going to www.logmein.com, the last successfull hop was a peer labelled similar to verio.cogentco.com, meaning we crossed over to Verio's side. (the actual name was more meaningful). Now today, the traffic destined for that site stops cold at the first hop from our network, meaning it does not get routes from Level3 on where to send the data, once we enter Cogent's network. Unless you are referring that Cogent is blocking any advertised route info from Level3, which is highly unlikely. If Level3 was allowing our IPs to go through Verio's link, we would receive routes to route our packets in that direction across Cogent's network, and packets would travel further into Cogent's network (such as to the Verio link). If Cogent blocked traffic to Verio, it would most likely block it at the peer, not at the entry to Cogent's network from us as their client. This isn't evidence of blocking on L3's side. It could be because Cogent only purchases transit to certain prefixes and L3 isn't one of them (and Verio is filtering the announcements.) It could be because Cogent internally uses traffic engineering to prevent L3 traffic from reaching them over their Verio transit circuits. One of the two scenarios is likely given their peering arrangement with L3. I didn't see any table entries on the L3 San Diego looking glass for AS174. I saw only one route on their Denver looking glass through AS7018. Does that mean that L3 is filtering or that Cogent's announcements aren't reaching L3 for other reasons? The former is probably correct, but that's not something that can be easily demonstrated. I couldn't find a looking glass in AS174 which would allow me to see Cogent's tables from the inside. Cogent does appear to be announcing their Verio link to other peers, however. I see direct announcements for AS174 and an announcement for Sprint->Verio->Cogent, but not an AT&T->Cogent path. I think that both carriers are at fault. Both companies should have resolved this before it came to reducing connectivity for their customers. They both should be held accountable by their customers. I replied to your original post, Tom, because Cogent made a public statement which directly contradicted yours and I thought that people on the list should have a more complete story [1]. You could be entirely correct about there having been a contract violation. I am confident that a considerable amount of money will be wasted trying to determine that. I fear that because of the the popularity of this issue it will reach the ears of the less clueful xEOs at carrier organizations and that the current SFI structure could be at risk of being 're-evaluated' in favor of paid interconnection. Most of the scenarios that I can think of involving compensation for interconnection lead to higher wholesale prices of bandwidth and additional overall system complexity. It appears that Cogent is unwilling to use this route because it would force them to pay (Verio) per Mb/s for the information sent to/from L3's network. The de-peering was consistent with the peering agreement between L3 and Cogent according to http://status.cogentco.com/ It stated that, but it is not in actuallity. So why would Cogent lie about something that makes them look bad on their own public web site? Many SFI contracts allow for termination without cause given enough notice and it is reasonable to assume that this one included that type of language. According to conjecture on NANOG, Cogent was given notice >40 days before the disconnect. In the absence of more reli
