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-----
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-----
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
> 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
> [...]
> 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:

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:

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



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to