[18094] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: backbone transparent proxy / connection hijacking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Sena)
Fri Jun 26 21:56:45 1998
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rich Sena <ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980626211617.27159D-100000@iago.nac.net>
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 alex@nac.net wrote:
> Accurately is a bone of contention. We've all seen what caching can do to
> time sensitive web-sites.
Not really - enlighten us... Web caching when done responsibly by caching
provider, customer AND content server has no "real" dangers of interfering
with dynamic or time sensitive data.
> I didn'y see any mention of copyright infringement, which will be an issue
> at some point. Also, the fact that if I am caching my customers
> web-servers, they are potentially getting free service.
Prefetching is really the only issue that bridges copyright infringement -
all other content was requested by a third party and not the cache itself
- in the arena of prefetching - where the cache is actively making a
decision to gather the content then you may actually have a point for
copyright infringement - but really a minor one.
> Hah! This is a silly statement. Not to mention, when sites are selling
> advertising based upon hits on thier site. Is there a way yet for the
> proxy to report back to the cached-site that is served a cached-copy of
> it's website?
You don't need to report back hit stats really - the content provider
merely needs to make "something" non-cacheable with an appropriate http
expires header - it can be something like a 1 pixel gif or maybe the
actual text of the page and take their hits off that - if "your" site
comes up quickly it will reflect better on the dsigner and owner of the
site - caching actually benefits content providers.
--
I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net
