" Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer had purchased."
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Big content has been making this more complicated. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Medcalf" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 1:31:24 PM Subject: RE: Internet diameter? >> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it). "just static content" would be more accurate ... >I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like >bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses, >equipment status, and other things that change constantly. There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the 90's -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with their "transparent poxies". Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer had purchased. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen >Satchell >Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2018 20:45 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Internet diameter? > >On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
