RE: Comments on Request Routing Requirements

[DonE@activate.net]

Paul,

I didn't mean to imply all 3 capabilities should not be developed at the
same time - all are high priority, but, among the high, what would really
help my company right now is RR interworking.  And then after that
Accounting and Distribution automation are needed.

Business issues can be worked out when there is enough of a need (as we have
between Activate and Speedera), and technical issues worked around by manual
or proprietary methods.  But for CDNs to really take off, interworking needs
to be standardized.

Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scanlon, Paul [mailto:Paul.Scanlon@qwest.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:13 PM
> To: 'DonE@activate.net'; cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on Request Routing Requirements
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> Good comments.  I agree, I do think that the majority of interactions
> between two consumer facing CDNs would require a very clear, 
> functional and
> scalable RRS.  But what about a third party vendor that 
> brings a clearing
> house type of solution to multiple CDN peers?  In this case I 
> think the
> interactions between the consumer facing CDN and the Clearing 
> house  would
> be much more dependant on the Accounting systems.  A peering between a
> Content provider's network or a transit network with large hosting
> agreements with content providers would of course prioritize the
> distribution system.  I would be willing to bet that there 
> will be more
> consumer facing CDNs in the market than the clearing house or hosing /
> transit types, however I think it important not to prioritize 
> one system
> over the other in this standards effort.  I think the 
> business applications
> will force a prioritization based on individual implementations.
> 
> Also, its my feeling that the business problems surrounding 
> peering are much
> more difficult nuts to crack than the technical.  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul Scanlon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DonE@activate.net [mailto:DonE@activate.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 6:20 PM
> To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Comments on Request Routing Requirements
> 
> 
> From my point of view, for Content Interworking to be a 
> reality Request
> Routing Peering is by far the highest priority because there 
> is no other way
> to direct requests to the best CDN.  The next priority is 
> Accounting Peering
> because frequent retrieval of accounting data is a hassle, 
> and, at least for
> infrequently changing content, Distribution Peering is needed 
> much less
> often.

...