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
> >>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/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to