BTW Linux distributions are available to download via bittorrent, so we dont really need Akamai/Limelight here. Is there a reason why Apple has not adopted bit-torrent for distribution? Are there legal/commercial implications using bit-torrent?
Glen On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Neil Harris <n...@tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/09/13 10:32, John Smith wrote: > >> Picked this off www.jaluri.com (network and Cisco blog aggregator): >> >> http://routingfreak.wordpress.**com/2013/09/23/ios7s-impact-** >> on-networks-worldwide/<http://routingfreak.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/ios7s-impact-on-networks-worldwide/> >> >> The consensus seems to be for providers to install CDN servers, if they >> arent able to cope up with an occasional OS update traffic. >> >> http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?**id=391B4B64-F693-41B7-**6BBAC6D7017C3B8A<http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=391B4B64-F693-41B7-6BBAC6D7017C3B8A> >> >> John >> >> > Perhaps Apple, Microsoft etc. should consider using Bittorrent as a way of > distributing their updates? If ISPs were to run their own Bittorrent > servers (with appropriate restrictions, see below), this would then create > an instant CDN, with no need to define any other protocols or pay any third > parties. > > The hard bit would be to create a way for Apple etc. to be able to > authoritatively say "we are the content owners, and are happy for you to > replicate this locally": but perhaps this could be as simple serving the > initial seed from an HTTPS server with a valid certificate? It would then > be trivial to create a whitelist of the domains of the top 10 or so > distributors of patches, and then everything would work automatically from > then on. > > -- N. > > >