i guess what we come down to is this: is it the router's responsibility to maintain state on devices around it, or of devices to inform the router of their state. imho, its a moot point, but i dare say that it was
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sorry, previous message accidentally went out unedited. Blame it on Microsleuth Lookout 98 and operator error. probably
easier for cisco to implement the former, as it would have involved far less lines coded in IOS than the latter solution.
WCCP maintains "shared state" between cache engines and routers. Unless all entities agree about the state of the world, WCCP is not activated (or will shut itself down to prevent service disruption). It does have very distinct "fail-safe" mechanisms, and is very suitable for maintaining consistent state in a one-to-many as well as many-to-many caching setup because of it. IMHO, that is. Cheers, Chris - -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@adsu.bellsouth.com> -wk ck@gnu.org -hm Sr. Network Architect, BellSouth Corp., Advanced Data Services NOTE: "We speak PGP: key available at well-known key servers." "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNkoxo4RXnO1Cm58sEQLImwCg9uQEO4h/Hrm5O/RFgEqg3a8FwnMAn3GI 1iXOfZVSKEDK/3DHQWAfBSZZ =bppa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----