nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues)
From: David Schiffrin <daves () adnc com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
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____
Current thread:
- Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) Sean M. Doran (Aug 12)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) alex (Aug 12)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) Jon Lewis (Aug 12)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) David Schiffrin (Aug 13)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) Mike Gibbs (Aug 13)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) Jon Lewis (Aug 12)
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) alex (Aug 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues) Sean M. Doran (Aug 13)