Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
If you set up a mirror with the same host name as the content provider has, you will probably get sued for identity theft, cybersquatting, forgery or whatever.
No, only the content provider (really the domain name owner) can set up these mirrors. This is nothing new. This is how the web and DNS work *today*. Many high volume sites such as www.google.com, www.amazon.com, www.nytimes.com, and so forth--send you to different physical boxes depending on where you're connecting from. These boxes are usually chosen to be close to the end user. For instance, a reader on the east Coast might get www.nytimes.com in New York but one on the West Coast might get a box in Los Angeles. A reader in Japan might get a box in Japan. (I don't know if this is actually how the NYT seets up its servers or not. Some tracerouting from different locations might find out quickly.)
Large content providers already move their content closer to the end user. They do this by physically locating boxes with the same host name and fancy DNS and router tricks. The details are complex, which is why CCNAs get the big bucks. But they do not do this by linking to 3rd party content.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] Refactoring HTML Just Published! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA
