I apologize if my mail appeared to do advertising.
It was my honest intention to point out that there are intelligent peer to peer solutions which achieve the objective of fast multimedia content access which are available at much much cheaper prices as compared to the hardware necessary in hardware based solutions from many of the vendors.
If as you say there are very few CDN operators now it is simply because they do not get much return for the investment they have to put in for costly hardware.
Definitely there is a growing untapped market for content delivery and we would be only blinding ourselve if we continue to look the same way for solutions.
jayasurya
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Day [mailto:markday@cisco.com]
Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 6:21 PM
To: jayasurya venugopalan; Elisa Turrini; cdn@ops.ietf.org
Cc: justin@onionnetworks.com
Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?
RE: Is CDI dead?I am not happy about having this mailing list used for product advertisements. Please don't pursue this any further.
I don't try to sell my company's products to this WG, and I'd like everyone else to do likewise.
Thanks,
--Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of jayasurya venugopalan
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:03 AM
To: Mark Day; Elisa Turrini; cdn@ops.ietf.org
Cc: justin@onionnetworks.com
Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?
With ref to this extract from you rmail:
The reality of CDI is that we've gone from having
"lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having "very
few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make progress on
standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or unable to
participate.
I agree with you in toto.
I personally feel that the cost of CDN hardware like the Content Engine or Switch is quite expensive for the times we are in now.
Not that we need Content Networking less , actually there is a greater need for really fast access of high bandwidth consuming multimedia converged content.
Solutions like Justin Chapweske's Tornado Web Raid CDN which is essentially an intelligent peer to peer solution based on an intelligent content gateway inside the corporate net, and intelligent "onion peers", merits attention for a solution for today for fast access of content rich media.
I refer you to :
http://onionnetworks.com
for information and comments re Justin's solution.
With Rgds
jayasurya
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Day [mailto:markday@cisco.com]
Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 12:21 PM
To: Elisa Turrini; cdn@ops.ietf.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?
I think it's important to distinguish a working group from an interest
group.
No-one is saying that CDI is an uninteresting topic. Many of us expect that
the subject will once again attract a sufficient level of attention in the
future to warrant standardization efforts. But the IETF does not charter
working groups based on "2 or 3" people who want to comment on things. And
a working group that has reached the point of being defended on the basis
that there might still be a few people who want to talk about things is
basically not functioning as a working group any more.
There are many interesting things that are not standardized. (And there are
many things standardized that are not very interesting!) It's important to
keep track of what kind of group you're dealing with and what kind of work
is to be done there. The reality of CDI is that we've gone from having
"lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having "very
few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make progress on
standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or unable to
participate.
--Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Elisa Turrini
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Is CDI dead?
>
>
> [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is
> easy to miss
> and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
> post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
> message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
> address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
> automatically accepted. ]
>
> On 18-03-2003 23:28, "jayasurya venugopalan" <jaya.venu@wipro.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I feel if even only 2or 3 of us are interested we should carry on.
> > Some of us may not be in a postion to actively contribute but
> we could well
> > observe and comment.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I wrote two short papers about CDI and I am still investigating the CDI
> issues.
>
> You can find the papers at:
> http://www.cs.unibo.it/~turrini/PAPERS/
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Elisa
>
>
>
>