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 
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



> -----Original Message-----
> 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."
> >> 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, the last successfull hop was a peer 
> > labelled similar to, 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 
> >>
> >
> > 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:
> ===
> <
> 5889592.html>
> <>
> <>
> <,289139,sid7_gci1132
> 045,00.h
> tml>
> and of course the obligatory slashdot thread:
> <
> =187&tid
> =4>
> ===
> --
> WISPA Wireless List:
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> Archives:
> --
> 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:



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.10/120 - Release Date: 10/5/2005

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.10/120 - Release Date: 10/5/2005
WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to