On 4/15/11 8:40 PM, "Jay Hanke" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Is our hope that if we can get one CDN to hook up the rest will follow
>>on their own?
>> It might be a little more palatable if we think about it with a long
>>view.
>
>Indirectly yes. There are a number of local networks that won't
>connect unless we have one of the big cdns available on the exchange.
>There are cdns that won't connect until we have more local networks
>connected.
I love the 'community'.
I mean, unless my demands are met, I can not join your community even if
it would benefit myself and the community, now leave me alone while I
check out this new pile of sand and figure out what is underneath.
>> But of course we also have to think about the precedent we're setting...
>
>We should be mindful of this.
This discussion has changed my mind about things.
CDN wants to connect, they can buy a rack and provide a cross-connect and
peer up either via the route servers or do some bilateral peering.
Those providers who won't connect without a CDN need to put pressure on
the CDN if that is their requirement, and they can continue routing to
Kansas City or Chicago for years for all I care.
And if I sound pissy, sorry.
I am not interested in kowtowing further for CDNs or begging for networks
to connect when they say they would and still haven't after 6+ months.
Some seem to have forgotten about this idea of interconnecting locally for
the benefit of their downstream customers, whether that is a student,
another company who isn't multi-homed, or their employees.
This has the added benefit of shaving costs on Internet fees for
bandwidth, and as time goes on, the benefit continues to grow with the
addition of more networks joining the community bringing to the table the
other benefits. Like CDNs, or sharing of a resource of some type.
How many on this list:
Are connected...
Have an Akamai cluster today...
Either have static assignments logged with Akamai or use a silent BGP
feed...
Are willing to plug in networks received over the route servers into their
configuration for their Akamai cluster config...
ipHouse answer: Yes to all 4
If enough others do this, then we'll have a redundant array of Akamai
servers reachable over the interconnections we have put in place as being
part of MICE.
*WE* can do something for MICE, we don't need to beg Akamai for something,
or Limelight, or any of the myriad of others. We start showing the
benefits to *our* community and eventually the CDNs will see that they
will get more eyes (== $$$) on the content by providing a direct cluster.
And if you think they are going to sit back because things are already in
place... I don't think so, and that's because my little cluster I have in
my data center won't sustain the total traffic, neither will yours, and as
customers complain, Akamai (the example used right now) will hear about it
and want to do something about it.
My rant is over, whatever the community wants to do is fine by me, but as
one of the steering committee members, I am backing off from this issue
that is of minor importance to me.
I find it would be far more important for those networks that stated they
were going to connect to get off of their butts and connect.
You know who you are...500Mbps of aggregate traffic already and growing,
don't you want to be on the ground floor of the community so you can say
'I was there when it started'?
--
Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! [log in to unmask]
The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is
that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
|
