RE: new to cdn internetworking

["Phil Rzewski" <philr@inktomi.com>]

Indeed. Limited air time has been given to the topic in a couple of the
drafts... namely, the description of an "LCN" scenario in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-04.txt, and
some historical background on Content Bridge in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-douglis-cdi-known-mech-00.txt.

We're most certainly not making any type of assumption that these sorts of
proxies are necessary to have content internetworking. What's noted by
these drafts is that there are ways they could potentially participate.
However, the "rough consensus" within this group has been that it's a case
we'd rather not consider deeply right now. Instead, the primary focus seems
to be more on "CDNs" (in the market-defined sense), which typically implies
types of request-routing (such as DNS-based) that are NOT in-line.

As long as I've got the floor: I haven't had any feedback on the updated
Scenarios draft yet. Don't make me go the silence=acceptance route. :)

--
Phil


At 01:20 PM 11/13/2001 -0500, Mark Day wrote:
>> If there is an implicit assumption here that forward proxies (and
>> associated infrastructures) are common place, or easily financially
>> justified or operationalized, or otherwise readily available and
>> implementable, or work generally well, that may be considerably
>> out of touch with reality.
>
>Just a quick clarification in the hope of heading off potential confusion:
>The above is NOT assumed by the CDI group's work in general.
>
>It may or may not be an assumption of Eric's message -- I'll defer to him on
>that point.
>
>--Mark
> 
--
Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation                  
650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)