CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
Hi Adrian, I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. Here in central europe we had caching friendly environment from 1997 till 2001 due of transit lines pricing. Few yaers ago prices for upstream connectivity fell and from this time there is no interest for caching. I've discussed this with several nationwide ISPs in .cz and found these reasons: a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent I don't want to judge these answers, just FYI. It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at the point where your customers connect in. Same here. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) Please see points (a)-(d). I think there can be also point (e). Some telcos want to play triple-play game (Internet, telephony and IPTV). They want to move their users back from the Internet to relativelly safe revenue area (television channel distribution via IPTV). Regards Michal Krsek
Re: CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote: For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit though... a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent Only a, b apply. d I am not sure I understand.
Re: CDN ISP (was: Re: Google wants to be your Internet)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:15:44 -0600 (CST) Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote: For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit though... a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another system for configuration) b) possible conflict with content owners c) they want to sell as much as possible of bandwidth d) they want to have their network fully transparent Only a, b apply. d I am not sure I understand. I think (d) is all network testing tools showing a perfect path, which sould isolate the fault to the remote web server itself, yet the website not working because the translucent proxy has a fault. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
