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

David Schiffrin daves at
Thu Aug 13 16:13:28 UTC 1998

Hmm, In that case, doesn't it become an advantage for the webfarm who
is now buying transit to put up the cache ?


> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 alex at 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 at>  |  Spammers will be winnuked or 
>  Network Administrator       |  drawn and quartered...whichever
>  Florida Digital Turnpike    |  is more convenient.
> ______ for PGP public key____

More information about the NANOG mailing list