<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] Comindico routing</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think he was saying that from an ISP's perspective, there isn't much point to proxying HTTP for the sake of saving bandwidth, as the bandwidth saved would be little in terms of the total bandwidth required.<BR>
<BR>
-Richard<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@ausnog.net on behalf of Campbell, Alex<BR>
Sent: Wed 23/04/2008 1:26 PM<BR>
To: jay binks; Daniel Thoroughgood; ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Comindico routing<BR>
<BR>
> the whole proxy thing is kinda odd actually, being that ive<BR>
> seen figures around that HTTP traffic is now such a low<BR>
> percentage of bandwidth... why bother. I guess they still<BR>
> figure its 'enough'<BR>
<BR>
HTTP traffic might be a low percentage of overall bandwidth, but it is a<BR>
very high percentage of what most (non-technical) users care about.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@ausnog.net [<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@ausnog.net</A>] On<BR>
Behalf Of jay binks<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2008 12:48 PM<BR>
To: Daniel Thoroughgood; ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Comindico routing<BR>
<BR>
surely there are better ways of achieving this in your routers,<BR>
<BR>
simply differentiating the route based on TCP port 80 would get 85% of<BR>
their clients..<BR>
sure people could bypass it, but it wouldn't be in their interest to do<BR>
so in the case your proposing.<BR>
It would also have the upside of people being able to do host overrides,<BR>
and not breaking some sites.<BR>
<BR>
the whole proxy thing is kinda odd actually, being that ive seen figures<BR>
around that HTTP traffic is now such a low percentage of bandwidth...<BR>
why bother. I guess they still figure its 'enough'<BR>
<BR>
Jay<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Thoroughgood<BR>
<Daniel.Thoroughgood@staff.tsninternet.com.au> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From what I understand TPG use their proxy more for segregating<BR>
bandwidth than they do for caching.<BR>
<BR>
As I understand the proxies are on ranges that are advertised to<BR>
the<BR>
"good" bandwidth supply so that customers browsing remains<BR>
relatively<BR>
unaffected regardless of how hard they run the "bad" bandwidth<BR>
supply.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
______________________________________________________________________<BR>
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.<BR>
For more information please visit <A HREF="http://www.messagelabs.com/email">http://www.messagelabs.com/email</A><BR>
______________________________________________________________________<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
AusNOG mailing list<BR>
AusNOG@ausnog.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://www.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>