Re: Internet diameter?

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

" Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer 
had purchased." 


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Big content has been making this more complicated. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com> 
To: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 1:31:24 PM 
Subject: RE: Internet diameter? 

> > I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it). 

"just static content" would be more accurate ... 

> I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like 
> bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses, 
> equipment status, and other things that change constantly. 

There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the 90's -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with 
their "transparent poxies". Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer 
with what the customer had purchased. 

--- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. 


> -----Original Message----- 
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Stephen 
> Satchell 
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2018 20:45 
> To: nanog () nanog org 
> Subject: Re: Internet diameter? 
>
> On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote: