"IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

No, it does not.

If I own something, it doesn't matter how "important" the people who want to buy it are.

But I guess that's not operational.

If they'd like that included as a side-channel for certain response types,
then they could ask. Its not like caches don't store per-connection information
like that already.. :slight_smile:


Surely the whole point of this is that the end users (the eyeballs) get the best experience they can as they're the ultimate consumer. So working with everyone in the chain between the content owner and the eyeballs is important.

If you're a content owner then you want the experience to be good so that either you sell more ads or that your "brand" (whatever that may mean) is well thought of.

It's why content owners use CDNs - to ensure that it's delivered close to the end user.

Surely that means, logically to me anyway, that working with caching providers local to the eyeballs is the next logical point. Certainly for the heavy bits that don't change (eg the video streams Adrian mentioned).

It's a mutual benefit thing - if your content sucks for a school (for example) to use then they're not going to use it. That's not good for you as a content owner.

I realise that CDNs probably aren't that keen on people caching as it reduces their revenue, but a level of being rational about helping the whole chain deliver means probably more traffic overall.


I mean, I could extend an olive branch to all the CDNs out there and
ask exactly what kind of extensions they'd like to see in intermediary
caches so they can get the statistics they require, whilst allowing
the edge to serve content on their behalf, but I doubt I'd get any

Oh well. Back to hacking on software so it can shuffle more bits.