Hello, John Milburn writes:

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.

I'd like to raise an interesting point here. I'm not convinced it's a righteous point though, but since people have been turning the issue on the two sides of client billing and server billing, I'll do the same to this suggestion. I work for a Finnish ISP and from my perspective all you American providers are "one huge Exodus." We battle with the issue by providing customers with an efficient web cache system. So basically what I'm saying is that GTEI could go a long way in solving the problem of asymmetric peering traffic due to web farm providers with an efficient web cache system for their customers. On my continent this is almost an unwritten responsibility of an ISP. My 0.02 Euros, -- Aleksi Suhonen Network Development Saunalahden Serveri Oy Finland AXU-RIPE Ps. I'm not subscribed to the list, so please keep me in the Cc: in follow-ups. Also, if this message doesn't make it to the list, please forward it there.