Hey Matt - give me a call tomorrow morning please - 1-800-774-0320 JohnnyO
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:16 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_gci1132 045,00.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: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
