Re: Peering with a big web farm (was Re: BBN Peering Issues)

[Mike Gibbs <gibbs () servint 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____