On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Aron Xu <happyaron...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','p...@debian.org');>> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> > Doing this for the per-country mirrors means that repointing mirrors
>> > becomes a lot harder than it currently is, and this is something we do
>> > on a daily basis.  We'd need a solution for deploying the TLS cert for,
>> > say, ftp.de.d.o to ftp.se.d.o (or ftp.d.o) if ftp.d.o is down for
>> > maintenance.
>> I never really liked the per-country mirrors being under debian.org,
>> redirectors would be a better option. I think we really need to
>> redesign the apt archive namespace for Debian.
> Yeah but at the risk of making it broken like pypi and npm to quite
> some people including me.
To make it clear, content delivery systems used by pypi and npm don't work
for many people in China because:

1) Major global CDN providers don't have decent services in the country
(except akamai and cloudflare but need special contract);

2) BGP based network topology discovery never work because eBGP routing is
not widely deployed for subscriber network;

There's more to mention for Debian:

3) cdn.debian.net / httpredir.d.o tend to exclude local mirrors because of
the synchronization delays are much higher than in EU/US, even current
ftpX.cn.d.o would easily exceed the tolerance of redirecting software.


Reply via email to