Re: transparent caching....
mo@UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) writes:
I've been talking myself blue in the face for some time now trying to convince the never-ending parade of would-be cache builders that busting a gut to be "completely transparent" was simply not worth the effort because i was convinced it would turn out to be a bug and not a feature, especially when people had to troubleshoot problems.
I have come to agree with this, in the large. But it was and remains an interesting technical problem, and I feel strongly and proudly that our box was the only one that got it *right*. -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around <paul@vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
Paul, I am not surprised that your box is the only one that *got it right*. Having a clue has *always* been the advantage of the internet, and I think you hit that category ;) Talk has always been cheap. Paul Vixie wrote:
mo@UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) writes:
I've been talking myself blue in the face for some time now trying to convince the never-ending parade of would-be cache builders that busting a gut to be "completely transparent" was simply not worth the effort because i was convinced it would turn out to be a bug and not a feature, especially when people had to troubleshoot problems.
I have come to agree with this, in the large. But it was and remains an interesting technical problem, and I feel strongly and proudly that our box was the only one that got it *right*. -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around <paul@vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
participants (2)
-
Paul Vixie
-
Richard Irving