3 ms·
CDNs don't scale down that well. The likelihood that there is demand for one particular piece of data within the same subnet (and thus the value of having it th
by brazzy 17y ago
CDNs don't scale down that well. The likelihood that there is demand for one particular piece of data within the same subnet (and thus the value of having it there) decreases dramatically with the size of the subnet.
As the article itself points out, some CDNs already do this with large ISPs, directly. This kind of thing may increase and get more sophisticated, but it will never include the users themselves as middle men.
- milkshakes 17y agoCDNs don't scale down that well. The likelihood that there is demand for one particular piece of data within the same subnet (and thus the value of having it there) decreases dramatically with the size of the subnet. Is there no inflection point in between, where this makes sense? I guess what I'm trying to say is that CDNs cant be everywhere, but users can
- marcamillion 17y agoI agree with milkshakes on this one. Brazzy...you are right. CDNs (in their current form) don't scale well. A properly executed p2p CDN can scale much better, IMHO. As for not including users themselves as middle men, I must disagree with that. It makes economic sense for the ISPs to want to convert bad p2p traffic to good p2p traffic. That's their goal...all the while monetizing that good p2p traffic. Put it this way, the ISPs will do nothing, except sign a revenue share agreement and possibly change their TOS to allow customers to resell their bandwidth. For every GB resold, the ISP makes money. So in essence, they are converting bad p2p traffic to good p2p traffic and making a killing - the economics works in their favor.
- brazzy 17y agoTo the ISP there is no "bad" or "good" P2P traffic, just costs vs. income. And why would an ISP want to share revenue on bandwidth rather than get all the revenue themselves, since they are ultimately providing it?