Hi, On 10.09.21 01:46, Paul Wise wrote:
Another important argument is that it creates a dependency on third-party commercial CDNs, and their *continued* sponsorship.
This dependency on external providers is unavoidable, Debian definitely cannot afford to run our own CDN at the scale needed to support our existing userbase. For example the security mirrors struggled with Linux kernel security updates, so security.d.o switched to a commercial CDN. Also, we are dependent on continued sponsorship for all of our infrastructure, paying for all of our hosting is likely not feasible.
Yes -- and mirrors have traditionally been provided by third parties. What is new about the CDNs is that there are rather few of those, and this centralization aspect is what worries me.
Personally I'd like to see a larger variety of Debian delivery mechanisms; copy Debian/snapshot to archive.org, create a multi-distro FLOSS CDN, bring back httpredir, DebTorrent and apt-p2p, add an i2p mirror, use IPFS and content oriented networking etc. Michael Stone's apt://debian idea seems like a good way to move in that direction while adding protocol agility.
Yes, absolutely -- and we especially want to have a better solution for containers, because my expectation is that a large fraction of our traffic is just people not bothering to set up caching.
Simon