Sunday traffic curiosity

Mon Mar 23 04:14:03 UTC 2020

>
> But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just
> that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on
> transit costs ;)

Noted; this was a comment on what's already the case, not a proposal for
how to address it instead.  Apologies as I used poor phrasing here.

-- 
Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 6:45 PM Łukasz Bromirski <lukasz at bromirski.net>
wrote:

> Hugo,
>
> > On 23 Mar 2020, at 01:32, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at slabnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that's the thing:
> > Drop cache boxes inside eyeball networks; fill the caches during
> off-peak; unicast from the cache boxes inside the eyeball provider's
> network to subscribers.  Do a single stream from source to each
> "replication point" (cache box) rather than a stream per ultimate receiver
> from the source, then a unicast stream per ultimate receiver from their
> selected "replication point".  You solve the administrative control problem
> since the "replication point" is an appliance just getting power &
> connectivity from the connectivity service provider, with the appliance
> remaining under the administrative control of the content provider.
>
> But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just
> that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on
> transit costs ;)
>
> —
> ./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200322/aab22579/attachment.html>