[31772] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Cooper)
Fri Oct 20 09:54:58 2000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001020140954.00a98bf0@nemo.corp.equinix.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:50:53 +0100
To: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org>
From: Ian Cooper <icooper@equinix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010190943360.41772-100000@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 09:45 10/19/00 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> > It might be worth thinking about the problem from the other end. From a
> > web site owner's perspective, caching is a major annoyance. Here are the
> > arguments you may encounter from a web site owner or web developer:
> >
> > 1. It interferes with content in many cases (web site visitors may see
> > cached pages instead of current content). I know cache products claim
> > this doesn't happen, but it has, and often.
> >
> > 2. The website owner loses information on how many visitors are coming
> > to the site.
> >
> > 3. The website owner loses the demographics on where visitors are coming
> > from, and especially the number of unique visitors. (It's not helpful to
> > know that one cache engine visited, if that cache engine equated to
> > 10,000 visits in an hour).
>
>Hmmm... Anyone ever considered addressing this via some sort of log
>passing protocol or somesuch?
This is something identified by Martin Hamilton in the IETF wrec working
group's "Known Problems" document (draft-ietf-wrec-know-prob-02.txt) but
which was identified as out of scope for the group. That said, the work
being proposed in the content peering community
(http://www.content-peering.org/) identifies a need for something
similar. As Scott said, there's also RFC2227, though that doesn't appear
to have much support.
