3 ms·

I'm sorry, but I still don't get what you are trying to say. For one, caches are not exactly located on customer premises, either, right? They tend to be locat

I'm sorry, but I still don't get what you are trying to say. For one, caches are not exactly located on customer premises, either, right? They tend to be located in places that have easy access to power and are well-connected with fibres, and so far transmission speeds seem to be mostly going up. Also, well, yes, social networks tend to be geographically localised, so I would very much expect p2p application traffic to also be geographically localized!? Widely consumed content that's distributed in a p2p fashion obviously is just as amenable to caching as widely consumed content that's distributed by a central service, if it's distributed through some kind of content-addressed network. If that's cheaper for the ISP, they could just put caching nodes into their data centers. Finally, I completely don't get why you think my communication should "generate revenue". My telephone calls don't generate any revenue either, do they? I simply pay someone for moving my bits around, that should be sufficient motivation for them to take care of moving my bits around.

sgt101 12y ago
I think that caches work where you have a vast imbalance of requests for a particular bit of content - they seem to me to define centralization. In terms of generate revenue - I mean provide a service that people are willing to pay for at a level that will fund a network that enables the use case and decentralization. Current services are tending to deep reach from the datacentre, because that's cheap. If all services that people are willing to pay for are suited to that model that's what everyone will get. To have a different infrastructure model you need a service that people will pay for that is not well served by deepreach from the datacentre. It's not the moving of the bits that is at issue, it's the how the bits are moved, where and who by.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  "I think that caches work where you have a vast imbalance of requests for a particular bit of content - they seem to me to define centralization." Hu? Caches for geographical distribution are actually a form of decentralization! The problem with the existing ones is that they are mostly under centralized control, but there is no technical reason why that has to be, and an ISP's caching web proxy (which weren't that uncommon back in the day) is a simple example of caching infrastructure under decentralized control that could help an ISP reducing the load on their upstream connection for often-requested content. You don't need youtube to copy a video from your machine to the cache at some viewer's ISP, that's just the way it is commonly done right now because in that way youtube can make money - or, if you want to decentralize further, you could copy to a cache on the machine of some customer of said ISP in some geographic region: The more requests there are for some content, the more likely it is that there is a copy in your neighbourhood that doesn't need to be transferred from the original source.

sgt101 12y ago

I think that caches work where you have a vast imbalance of requests for a particular bit of content - they seem to me to define centralization. In terms of generate revenue - I mean provide a service that people are willing to pay for at a level that will fund a network that enables the use case and decentralization. Current services are tending to deep reach from the datacentre, because that's cheap. If all services that people are willing to pay for are suited to that model that's what everyone will get. To have a different infrastructure model you need a service that people will pay for that is not well served by deepreach from the datacentre. It's not the moving of the bits that is at issue, it's the how the bits are moved, where and who by.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
"I think that caches work where you have a vast imbalance of requests for a particular bit of content - they seem to me to define centralization." Hu? Caches for geographical distribution are actually a form of decentralization! The problem with the existing ones is that they are mostly under centralized control, but there is no technical reason why that has to be, and an ISP's caching web proxy (which weren't that uncommon back in the day) is a simple example of caching infrastructure under decentralized control that could help an ISP reducing the load on their upstream connection for often-requested content. You don't need youtube to copy a video from your machine to the cache at some viewer's ISP, that's just the way it is commonly done right now because in that way youtube can make money - or, if you want to decentralize further, you could copy to a cache on the machine of some customer of said ISP in some geographic region: The more requests there are for some content, the more likely it is that there is a copy in your neighbourhood that doesn't need to be transferred from the original source.