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 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&t > id > >>=4> > >>=== > >>-- > >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >>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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > 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: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
