[18642] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schiffrin)
Thu Aug 13 12:31:37 1998
From: David Schiffrin <daves@adnc.com>
To: jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: alex@nac.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980813021703.32728G-100000@tarkin.fdt.net> from "Jon Lewis" at Aug 13, 98 02:20:12 am
Hmm, In that case, doesn't it become an advantage for the webfarm who
is now buying transit to put up the cache ?
-dave
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 alex@nac.net wrote:
>
> > > If one can force all outgoing to-the-webhosted-site queries
> > > through a single web cache, and the content is (or is made to be)
> > > relatively undynamic, one has a huge caching potential.
> >
> > Amen; I didn't even see that. But, that could work to BBN's favor!
>
> If BBN wants to sell connectivity to a big web farm provider, how does
> BBN's forcing all hits through a cache help BBN? The data all still
> crosses BBN's backbone, and the the web farm provider won't need as big a
> pipe. Maybe I'm missing something, but if BBN starts charging former
> peers, I'd think caching at these edges would be a bad thing for BBN.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or
> Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever
> Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient.
> ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
>
>
