> >Let's remember that a major goal of these facilities is to get a
> >user to a server that is 'close' to the user. Having interception
> >done only at distant, localized server farm facilities will not
> >achieve that goal.
...
> >client --> Internet -> ISP -> Intercept -> Internet -> Server1
> > -> Internet -> Server2
> > -> Internet -> Server3
>
> In the second case (which is what I am opposing) the server provider
> does not have anything to do with the interception. He runs only
> Server1, while Server2 and Server3 are caches which the ISP chooses
> to redirect the packages to which are addressed to Server1.
That's an assumption that's not always valid. There are cases in
existence now where a service provider *pays* the ISP to run a local
mirror, leading to
client --> Internet -> ISP -> Intercept -> Internet -> Server1
-> subnet -> Server2
It would be entirely possible for the service provider, having paid
the ISP not to get traffic from the ISP's clients, to block that
traffic - or limit its bandwidth.
Consider the progession:
client --> Internet -> ISP -> Router -> 56k -> Server1
-> T3 -> Server1
client --> Internet -> ISP -> Intercept -> 56k -> Server1
-> T3 -> Server2
client --> Internet -> ISP -> Intercept -> Internet -> Server1
-> subnet -> Server2
What is the fundamental difference between choosing the best path and
choosing the best source? Arguments that the latter breaks the IP
model are simply arguments that the IP model is broken for today's
Internet and will be even more broken for tomorrow's. The IETF can
fix the model ... or leave that to someone else.
--
Dick St.Peters, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY
Saratoga/Albany/Amsterdam/BoltonLanding/Cobleskill/Greenwich/
GlensFalls/LakePlacid/NorthCreek/Plattsburgh/...
Oldest Internet service based in the Adirondack-Albany region
