>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 8:10 AM
>from a protocol perspective, I don't think it matters whether the CDN
>is owned by the content-provider or whether it is owned by a separate
>party. we still need to define the interaction between the two, so
>that there are standard components. then it's a business decision
>on the content-provider's part as to whether to build the CDN itself
>(and whether to do so out of standard components or to roll its own),
>or pay someone else to do that function.
Yes, this in part is the essence of what we've proposed thus far in CDNP.
Peering is the interaction between CDNs (including Content Provider to CDN
relationship as well) and is not intended to constrain business model value
chains. A slight clarification is in order with respect to building CDNs.
CDNP deals with interaction between CDNs but does not address the components
within CDNs, which is a seperate but interesting topic. Think of CDNP as
being the exterior protocols used between administrative domains, much like
EGP was used for in IP peering.
>(note that accounting/billing support are useful even when
>the content and the CDN are owned by the same party)
In CDNP, we imagine accounting being of great value in providing feedback to
the system in order to tune it, provision it, as well as determine its
effectiveness.
Gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST