[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Content [Distribution Network] Peering (was Re: Candidate re-charter/new WG)
>For example, say a cable modem provider (CMP) puts caching proxies in each
>of several cable head ends. CMP informs their subscribers in each area of
>their local cache, and all subscribers explicitly configure their
>browsers. The CMP then creates a peering relationship with several CDNs to
>have content distributed into these caching proxies, and to provide
>logging information to those CDNs in return. This means there is
>distribution and accounting happening between the CMP and the peer CDNs.
>Therefore, the caching proxies take on a partial role as a "surrogates".
>So far, CMP's cache deployment has some traits of a CDN. However, there is
>"null" redirection (the cache in a subscriber's head end is defined as
>"good" for any content request). Also, the CMP is not operating a
>"relatively complex system encompassing multiple points of presence around
>the world" [draft-day-cdnp-model-02]. Each cable head end is an isolated
>and tightly-coupled relationship between the subscribers in that area and
This is the "vertical peering" scenario, meaning a set of caches in one
administrative domain without full-fledged CDN functionality can
participate as leaves in a full-fludged CDN of another administrative
domain. Technically, the protocol for vertical peering may be similar in
many aspects to that used inside of a CDN. E.g., content preloading,
invalidation, and accounting.
At 03:08 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Fred Douglis wrote:
>You make a good point: "CDN Peering" may be too specific to cover the
>you've described, unless one is generous with the definition of a CDN.
>However, I think "Content Peering" is a poor term, because we're not peering
>"content", we're peering entities that deliver content. (This is similar to
>the forwarding-versus-routing debate that has hit the cdn mailing list
>I'm not sure I have a third suggestion that I like more than these two, just
>that I think "Content Peering" is the wrong direction to take this. For
>would be inclined to include your scenario under the CDN framework.