Re: BBN Peering issues (fwd)

[owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)]

> ftp.gatekeeper.com, like all content hosting sites, attracts
> users to one location, when it could instead attract users to
> the same content in multiple locations.
Please explain why you believe this to be universally true of
content hosting sites.  Especially when you consider that Exodus
has been a leader in promoting distributed fault tolerant services
to its customers.

> This is inefficient.
Agreed.  However, assertion 1 being false, the corollary seems less
relevant.

> Many archive sites direct people to mirrors topologically closer
> to them, and as more actual content owners purchase duplicate sites
> in places like Europe (http://www.europe.cnn.com, 
> http://www.yahoo.{se, .co.uk, .ca}) both for the technical gains 
> and also as a means of strengthening one's brand globally.
And many content providers use various products for redirecting requests
to the topologically closest mirror.  The result is actually better
in many cases, as no manual intervention is required by the user,
and the system usually measures topological closeness instead of making
geographical recommendations.

> This is much more efficient.
>
> This should be carried on.
Agreed.

> It is in carriers' interests to encourage the trend too,
> and it is probably a good idea to work out means of hosting
> content more locally than data centres in California,
> as a means of increasing network efficiency.
Also agreed.  What makes you think Exodus, for example, only
has datacenters in California?  We currently have customers
live in Seattle, Santa Clara, Irvine, Waltham, Jersey City,
Herndon, and London.

> It is in content-owners' interests to encourage the trend
> also, as ultimately their brand is the one that is hurt
> by unreliability.   Yes, it might hurt carrier X's business
> when carrier X cannot get to Popular Content Site, but some
> fraction of carrier X's customers will go away thinking,
> "performance to Popular Content Site sucks!  Popular Company sucks!"
True.  However, a good percentage of them will call carrier X
or Popular Company, or Popular Company's ISP first.

> Moreover, as the capacity market distortions are sorted
> out in many places, it almost certainly will be cheaper
> for content owners to spread the work of distribution around,
> so that the traffic stays as local as possible.
Yep.  At least three hosting companies I know of are trying to
lead the way on technologies and business models to encourage
this.  Given that, I simply cannot see your statement that the
hosting companies prevent this as being anything but specious.


>       Sean.
Owen