CDN & ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
michal at krsek.cz
Mon Jan 22 08:26:25 UTC 2007
> I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache
> could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff
> especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost
> upwards of
> USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment.
Here in central europe we had caching friendly environment from 1997 till
2001 due of transit lines pricing. Few yaers ago prices for upstream
connectivity fell and from this time there is no interest for caching. I've
discussed this with several nationwide ISPs in .cz and found these reasons:
a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system
b) possible conflict with content owners
c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth
d) they want to have their network fully transparent
I don't want to judge these answers, just FYI.
> It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL
> content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to
> and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of
> but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right
> the point where your customers connect in.
> (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing
> of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd
> to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world
> what we could to do make it easier for y'all.)
Please see points (a)-(d). I think there can be also point (e).
Some telcos want to play triple-play game (Internet, telephony and IPTV).
They want to move their users back from the Internet to relativelly safe
revenue area (television channel distribution via IPTV).
More information about the NANOG