[18132] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Digex transparent proxying
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Elder)
Sat Jun 27 19:10:47 1998
Reply-To: <delder@graypeak.com>
From: "Derek Elder" <delder@graypeak.com>
To: "'Rich Sena'" <ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net>,
"'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>
Cc: "'Michael Shields'" <shields@crosslink.net>,
"'Aaron D. Gifford'" <agifford@infowest.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:30:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980627054616.11444G-100000@poppa>
This seems like more of a marketing issue than an operational issue. I see
transparent proxying as another product offering in which you would have two
options.
Option 1 -- Utilize transparent proxying by applying policy based routing.
This causes the backbone providers to use less bandwidth, so customers cost
is reduced (i.e., highest cost is the backbone, so apply a discount for less
bandwidth use). If contracts prior to the placement of the proxy are in
place, the customer would have to provide explicit approval (and realize a
reduced cost) before this policy would be applied.
Option 2 -- Apply no policy to the end users connection. This is typically
what "in place" contracts had in mind. If I agree to pay you $xxxx.xx/month
for a connection before the cache was put in place, I should still receive
that connection unaltered.
BTW, I am in favor of transparent proxying...but not if I don't control it.
;)
D.
Derek Elder
US Web / Gray Peak Technologies
Network Engineering
212-548-7468
Pager - 888-232-5028
delder@graypeak.com
http://www.usweb.com
A Strategic Partner for the
Information Age.
