On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Muwonge Ronald <[email protected]> wrote:
I understand MTN and UTL business wise but technically lets test the > thing as they finalize the money thing putting in mind the content > isn't local people ;-) > technical challenges may be, costs... I don't think so. We recently tried to work out a few things with the bandwidth we were consuming in the office and what a cache would save us. Based on our calculations and consideration of a cache server that caches data more or less like the GGC does, we actually save 75% of our office bandwidth by utilising the cache. If you took into consideration that you would save 35% of your downlink bandwidth and 35% of your uplink bandwidth, I think it follow that you benefit more than Google would, since, all their data is offered to the end users for free. Ronnie, run netflow on your router that directly peers with your uplink, analyse this data and find out how much of that traffic is youtube, google and Google related sites. Let Google give it to us and we'll do all to ensure it gets through the IX, no strings attached. -- Mike Of course, you might discount this possibility, but remember that one in a million chances happen 99% of the time. ------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
