[130073] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Sep 27 15:25:47 2010
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:27:28 BST."
<201009271827.TAA11225@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:25:35 -0400
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1285615535_7757P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:27:28 BST, Brandon Butterworth said:
> I fail to see the point. If an ISP needs to add caches they may
> as well just add a simple, cheaper, standard, http cache.
It's a bang-per-buck issue, and depends highly on whether your
particular network sees more HTTP or P2P traffic. If HTTP is 60%
of your traffic, an http cache makes sense. If P2P is 70% and
HTTP is 20%, it probably doesn't make sense.
And the only numbers that matter here are what *you* measure
at the point you intend to install the cache - I've seen so many
conflicting numbers for different parts of the net that no firm
conclusions can be drawn.
--==_Exmh_1285615535_7757P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMoO+vcC3lWbTT17ARAixDAKDqQEU++VLoQycVV/9EwlvaeTo7+wCeJN1F
AgBrC/pRcnM8dk0/VlVJGyk=
=K8AD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1285615535_7757P--
