[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CDNP naming
Most Internet peering agreements are very generic and have little in the
way of SLA's. At best, I have seen "uptime" quotes. Lawyers are very
good at removing any sort of liability.
In addition, displacing these technical issues onto business or
implementation specific methods is not practical.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Oliver Spatscheck wrote:
> I think this is partly a question of business model. If I sell a customer
> a particular service (provide him with a SLA) it is my job to make
> sure all of my peers fulfill the SLA not the customers. I guess your question
> is are there any useful SLAs a set of CDNs can collectively support.
> My answer would be yes.
> Eric Dean writes:
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Eric Dean wrote:
> > > It is for this reason that I may not in favor for exclusively proposing a
> > > DNS-based request mapping method unless everyone uses the exact same
> > > surrogates with exact capabilities.
> > Just to be clear in what my concerns are here. If I'm a PUBLISHER and my
> > CDN provider goes off and peers with all sorts of other CDNs then I may
> > have a few problems:
> > If all those CDN's do not have equivalent capabilities then I may be
> > forced to break up my content into little descriptive elements using DNS
> > as the only method. For example, I may have to creatively encode my
> > objects using a various hostnames like
> > small_objects.cdn.net
> > large_objects.cdn.net
> > gzip_objects.cdn.net
> > stream_objects.cdn.net
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > How else will a CDN, receiving only a DNS query, know whether to route the
> > request to a peered CDN with sufficient capabilities or not?