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 reliable information I don't have any reason to assume > otherwise. > > >> Current NANOG consensus (whatever that's worth) is that both companies > >> are equally responsible for correcting their reachability issues, but > >> L3 initiated the de-peering process. > > > > Agreed. UNLESS Level3 is actually blocking IPs that were assigned via > > Cogent apposed to just blocking routes or connections. Unfortuneately I > > am not in a possition to prove wether our IPs are blocked because we are > > still single homed with Cogent. Cogent has so many peers that could > > transmit our data via alternate paths, and the amount of traffic on our > > network going to level 3 is so little, that Cogent would be making a > > poor financial decission not to route our traffic an alternate path > > based on risking that we would switch to a redundant link to Level3. > > Its not to Cogent's benefit to not route our traffic financial, so it is > > only logical that it is Level3 blocking our IPs. I was also told Level3 > > was blocking our IPs, which is why our IPs could not be re-routed. Sure > > I can't prove this, but its not looking good for level-3. > > Since there were no announcements for AS174 present in L3's San Diego > looking glass and there was a route present for them through AS7018 > (AT&T) I think that the reachability issues were caused by routing and > not IP blocking, but without direct access to the routing > infrastructure of both carriers, this is difficult to determine. > > Generally, SFI contracts do not allow traffic to transit a peer's > network to reach a third-party provider. While technically traffic > could be allowed to flow from Cogent to PartyA to L3, there is usually > no financial incentive for PartyA to allow this through an SFI and > significant financial disincentive to do so. Verio provides Cogent > with paid connectivity to certain destinations and theoretically this > transit could be used to reach L3. Why this isn't happening is a > matter of considerable speculation and in the absence of a statement > from an authoritative source at Cogent will remain so. > > >From Cogent's perspective it makes sense (to them anyway) to prevent > traffic from reaching L3 through any means other than the SFI > interconnect(s) because that puts pressure on L3 to bring the SFI up > again. Cogent has had other SFI circuits disconnected in the past and > there is conjecture that if they don't take a stand, others may follow. > > [...] > > Best, > Tony > > [1] JC Dill recently posted a few more links to other accounts of the > events: > === > <http://news.com.com/Network+feud+leads+to+Net+blackout/2100-1038_3- > 5889592.html> > <http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/68174> > <http://www.hostingtech.com/?m=show&id=964> > <http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/newsItem/0,289139,sid7_gci1132045,00.h > tml> > > and of course the obligatory slashdot thread: > <http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/10/05/2247207.shtml?tid=95&tid=187&tid > =4> > === > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 09/30/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 09/30/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
