Original message <2.2.32.19960513194819.00692964@pop3.atmnet.net> From: Mike Trest <trest@atmnet.net> Date: May 13, 12:48 Subject: Re: topological "closeness" (RE: Web o' Wonder)

...

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mike Trest wrote:

...

I am implementing a CACHE simply to improve on-net customer satisfaction. I expect the operational costs to be much less than the equivilent backbone or transit costs. If it has a side effect of reducting meet point traffic, then the entire net benefits.

Doesn't this require reconfiguring the customer's browsers to point at a proxy?

Yes. Initial customer reaction is, at first, hesitant. However, when they try it an see *DRAMTIC* improvements in response times. This is predicated on the "closeness" of the cache relative to dragging the stuff over the whole world.

Mike Trest, ATMNET Voice: 619 643-1805 5440 Morehouse Drive Fax: 619 643-1901 San Diego, CA 92121 Pager: 619 960-9070

-- End of excerpt from Mike Trest

Installing a cache proxy also means adding yet another thing to the list of "I wish I wasn't running one of these because some day I'll be in court over this". I'm already unhappy that there isn't adequate legal protection for me if/when I run a news server, and you're suggesting that I start keeping local disk copies of all the {illegal, copyrighted, trade secrets} information that's on the Web, TOO? When your site gets raided by the Secret Service and they grab your cache disks and take them home and run keyword searches on them, you're screwed. As soon as some nice legislation gets passed to protect me, the ISP, when I run a cache, I'll put one in and help solve the bandwidth problem. Saying "the network will break without cache servers" isn't a valid defense to charges of posession of illegal and/or copyrighted material. -matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net ps. Yes, if for some reason I ever get some time off of running an ISP myself, I'm very likely to spend a lot of my time helping to make sure that the legal situation for people like ISPs improves significantly.