Re: New draft available

[Eric Dean <eric@crystalballinc.com>]

This memo doesn't address any implementations of using ICP RFC2186/RFC2187
for CDN Request Mappings.  I have seen cases whereby an ISP either uses
transparent caches, or forced browser proxy into a cache that then speaks
ICP to nearby surrogates.

I have also seen implementations of CDN Request Mappings that use BGP
multi-homing techniques whereby the DNS address for content is registered
to an IP address that is shared by many surrogates in a diverse network.
The network then routes the content requests to the nearest surrogate.
   
Both of these implementations are widely used and have considerable
issues.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Mark Day wrote:

> This one really is new, as opposed to a revision of an existing draft:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cain-cdnp-known-req-map-00.txt
> or
> http://www.content-peering.org/draft-cain-cdnp-known-req-map-00.html
> 
> Here's the abstract:
> 
>     This memo presents a number of known mechanisms used to direct
>     client application requests to surrogate servers based on various
>     policies. In this memo we group mechanisms commonly called request
>     routing, content routing or content redirection under the term
>     request mapping. There exist multiple request mapping mechanisms. At
>     a high-level, these may be classified under: DNS Request Mapping,
>     Transport-layer Mapping, and Application-layer Mapping.
> 
> Thanks to the multiple members of the design team who wrote this new draft:
> Brad Cain, Fred Douglis, Mark Green, Markus Hoffmann, Raj Nair, Doug Potter,
> and Oliver Spatscheck.
> 
> --Mark
> 
> 

Eric Dean
President, Crystal Ball Inc.
W 703-322-8000
F 703-322-8010 
M 703-597-6921