4 ms·
> CloudFlare can do what Akamai does at a much more reasonable price. Not really. Akamai has presence inside many "too big to peer" networks, while CloudFlare
by Nyr 11y ago
> CloudFlare can do what Akamai does at a much more reasonable price.
Not really. Akamai has presence inside many "too big to peer" networks, while CloudFlare doesn't (for now).
You can't just compare CloudFlare to Akamai at the moment, they are following very different strategies.
- manigandham 11y agoCloudFlare seems to be rapidly expanding both datacenters and peering partnerships. Isnt the effective capability the same between both companies? Is there something that Akamai can do that CloudFlare cant?
- Nyr 11y agoThere is something which Akamai does and CloudFlare doesn't want to (at the moment): pay big sums to those big ISPs which refuse to peer and want to sell very expensive direct connections.
- manigandham 11y agoWhat does this mean for the company/application using CloudFlare or Akamai? Both services seem to be highly available and very fast from around the world. What does Akamai do here that's better?
- Nyr 11y agoAkamai has direct connections to those "difficult" ISPs, CloudFlare uses transit to reach them. To provide an example: transit to DTAG via GTT (CloudFlare) is always saturated at peak hours. So Akamai has a big advantage (direct connection) if you want to reach Deutsche Telekom customers.
- pandemicsyn 11y agoI assume its for this reason (and others) that even Amazon.com still uses Akamai. Stuff like product images/banners still get served from domains like g-ecx.images-amazon.com (which resolve to Akamai)