"IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)
mmc at internode.com.au
Thu Jan 22 02:04:58 UTC 2009
Surely the whole point of this is that the end users (the eyeballs)
get the best experience they can as they're the ultimate consumer. So
working with everyone in the chain between the content owner and the
eyeballs is important.
If you're a content owner then you want the experience to be good so
that either you sell more ads or that your "brand" (whatever that may
mean) is well thought of.
It's why content owners use CDNs - to ensure that it's delivered close
to the end user.
Surely that means, logically to me anyway, that working with caching
providers local to the eyeballs is the next logical point. Certainly
for the heavy bits that don't change (eg the video streams Adrian
It's a mutual benefit thing - if your content sucks for a school (for
example) to use then they're not going to use it. That's not good
for you as a content owner.
I realise that CDNs probably aren't that keen on people caching as it
reduces their revenue, but a level of being rational about helping the
whole chain deliver means probably more traffic overall.
On 22/01/2009, at 8:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> (Or the people having to deliver said content to said eyeballs, and
>> aren't being paid by the content deliverer on their behalf.)
> No, it does not.
> If I own something, it doesn't matter how "important" the people who
> want to buy it are.
> But I guess that's not operational.
More information about the NANOG