RE: Content Provider input

[DonE@activate.net]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Rzewski [mailto:philr@inktomi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:22 AM
> To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Content Provider input
> 
> 
> I wanted to kick off a discussion of a slightly less 
> technical nature, but 
> which I think is relevant given the current "requirements gathering" 
> climate. It's essentially a question of scope: How much of 
> CDNP's work 
> should directly reflect the desires of Content Providers?
> 
> If we consider the "value chain" for Content Delivery, it's 
> undeniable that 
> money enters the system at both ends. Content Providers pay 
> for hosting and 
> delivery; end users pay for Internet access and paid-use rich 
> content. The 
> majority of vocal CDNP list participants are either service 
> providers or 
> technology enablers, both of whom make their living by 
> eventually taking 
> their share of these funds. Therefore, in a sense, we should 
> all be guided 
> by requirements from these parties sooner or later.

Agreed, but I think revenue from the end users will become less
important, so ISPs should become more dependent on getting a cut from
the Content Providers for their part in the delivery.

> So here's a question: Are there any Content Providers 
> subscribed to CDNP 
> right now? If so, are you reading this list because you have 
> a specific 
> interest in Content Peering and how it will affect your 
> business? For over 
> a year, I've seen press and analysts refer to Content Peering 
> as a concept 
> without giving any indication they knew what it was. I've even seen 
> high-level spokespeople for Content Providers (e.g. news 
> authorities) say 
> that Content Peering is important to them. However, as you 
> can imagine, 
> technical requirements were strangely absent from these articles. :)

Activate as a webcaster may be as close as you are going to get.  Although
really a service provider (having a studio is the closest we are to being a
CP), but as I mentioned previously we are very dependent on CDNs for certain
types of events and we need a way to automate that.

> I'll certainly kick things off by offering my own data point. 
> Some of you 
> may have seen the drafts I submitted before the last IETF, namely 
> "Origin/Access Content Peering for HTTP" and the two 
> companion drafts. 
> While these were relatively simple, they did evolve out of 
> some Content 
> Provider requirements. They proposed a reasonably simple model of 
> Distribution and Accounting. The Request-Routing was a "null 
> case" because 
> access providers' proxy deployments became the initial target set of 
> "surrogates". Content Providers would maintain a relationship 
> with a single 
> Hoster or CDN that would, in turn, fan out Content Signals 
> for Distribution 
> and aggregate Accounting data in return.

As I mentioned, Request Routing is the most important piece for us.

> By comparison, I might see the proposals to coming out of 
> CDNP as a "next 
> generation", since they offer more possibilities. Content 
> Providers can be 
> considered as a form of "degenerate CDN" that can act as an 
> authoritative 
> Request-Routing entity and therefore control delivery from 
> multiple CDNs. 
> Some of the negotiation and metrics we've been debating could allow 
> reasonably robust control. In fact, in some of my contributions, I've 
> mentioned how these could allow Content Providers to construct robust 
> delivery policies (use one CDN for regional, one CDN for 
> "default transit", 
> etc.)

That's how Activate uses it's network and CDN partners.

> However, I'll be the first to admit that I'm speaking of those 
> concepts from a "wouldn't it be cool" concept. I have yet to 
> have a Content 
> Provider come to me and say "I wish I had a Request-Routing 
> system that 
> allowed me to exercise this level of control".
> 
> So I'll close with the question again. Are there Content 
> Providers here 
> that have an opinion on this topic? If not, do we care to 
> seek them out? Or 
> is the possibility of having a solution for "power user" 
> Content Providers 
> just a coincidental side-effect of designing a solution by 
> CDNs, and for CDNs?

That too.

Don

> Just food for thought.
> 
> --
> Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation
> 650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)
> 
>