nanog at ics-il.net
Thu Nov 22 21:13:13 UTC 2018
" 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.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf at dessus.com>
To: nanog at 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.
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
>Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2018 20:45
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Internet diameter?
>On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG