Mr I Forrester wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/bbc_highfield_isp_threat/
A slightly more Main Stream source: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3716781.ece And the BBC have another story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm Includes: > While allowing BBC content to be 'cached' by ISPs might be an instant fix to > the problem > it may not be the answer as more on-demand, bandwidth heavy applications come > online, he said. The BBC forgot to mention it's actually blocking ISPs from caching the streams. It's only safe to cache data when you know it is cacheable. You wouldn't want to cache data from a site that is providing live data now would you? The only way to know what can be cached is if the protocol tells you and for this you need to speak the protocol. HTTP for instance has headers for controlling caching[1], and anyone can build a device that talks HTTP, it's not secret. The BBC however send the huge files (the ones that are putting strain on the network) over a different protocol, a secret protocol, which makes it entirely uncacheable. The BBC failed mention this fact. By dropping RTMP in favour of HTTP an instant fix could be provided, so when is the BBC actually going to do that? Stop trying to make matters worse and let the mechanisms that where built into the Internet to address these problems do their work. Andy [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-13 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
