"Brian Dickson" <briand@teleglobe.net> writes:
The idea is basically this: the web farm provider uses a NAT device (or configures NAT on a router) for every peering point with a given peer who wants best-exit. Separate address pools (in private address space) are used for each such NAT (and distinct such pool sets amongst multiple such peer networks). Ingress traffic to the web farm provider has it's *source* address NAT'd, and internal routing points return traffic to the *same* NAT through which the request traffic came. Thus, return (data) traffic is best-exit.
Using a transparant cache for ingress traffic has the same effect as a NAT device, and scales with the number of concurrent flows. A cache farm is more expensive to provision and deploy than a simple NAT, but has the advantage of allowing for logging of source/destURL pairs, which may be important to some content providers. Caching can also can be a significant performance improvement in many cases, such as paths with high latency*BW links or congested long haul circuits. -jem John Milburn jem@xpat.com Director - BoraNet jem@bora.net Cell +82 19-220-7035 Tel +82 2-220-7035 Dacom Corporation, Seoul, Korea Fax +82 2-220-0751 The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw