Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Digex transparent proxying

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Mon Jun 29 10:36:40 1998

> Any content provider savvy enough to put that up could just as easily
> put in the proper headers to tag their content as cacheable or
> uncacheable or cacheable until time X, and that would be better for
> *everyone* involved.

yes, but they don't, and they won't, not ever.  expecting other people to do
the right thing is just not a hallmark of good operational practice, nor is
it a NANOG tradition.

> > dialup users, corporate customers and downstream ISPs who
> > utilize those links. Cached content is delivered accurately
> Accurately is a bone of contention. We've all seen what caching can do to
> time sensitive web-sites.

"go ahead, make my day."  as the principal architect of a caching product
which served up yesterday's newspaper when today's newspaper was wanted, for
pretty much all of 1997, to about two dozen hardy "early adopters" (you can
tell who they are by the flaming arrows sticking out of their backs), i'm now
perfectly willing to challenge you to find any content, no matter how broken
or mangled or missing its headers are, that a Web Gateway Interceptor can't
serve correctly.

and that's without any central registry of "bad content" such as that
described by in the post here from inktomi earlier in the day.

i'm not saying this out of a desire to use NANOG for product advertising; my
last caching product pretty much served its purpose by showing that this kind
of caching doesn't win back enough bandwidth if correctness is the goal, and
the product has no distribution channel at all.  i can't make money by arguing
about transparent caching on NANOG -- trust me.

so really i'm just flaming.  correctness *can* be maintained.  content
creators will *not* do the right thing.  anybody who says otherwise is
welcome to tell me a URL they think my WGI can't serve and also show me
mail from a content creator saying "thanks for telling me that i was
doing the wrong thing, i'll fix my Expires: headers immediately!"
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA			"Many NANOG members have been around
<>			 longer than most." --Jim Fleming
pacbell!vixie!paul		 (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.