[18653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Gibbs)
Thu Aug 13 15:59:49 1998
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Gibbs <gibbs@servint.com>
To: David Schiffrin <daves@adnc.com>
cc: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>, alex@nac.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199808131613.JAA26802@gemini.adnc.com>
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, David Schiffrin wrote:
> Hmm, In that case, doesn't it become an advantage for the webfarm who
> is now buying transit to put up the cache ?
>
> -dave
Yes, it does. The problem here is that current caches aren't designed for
content speed, and response. But with caches at the content end, it saves
cross-country bandwidth for the content provider, but really doesn't help
the dial-up farms.
Mike Gibbs
>
> >
> > 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____
> >
> >
>
