Re: Paying for someone else's traffic?

On Sun 1 Mar, 1998, David J N Begley <david@avarice.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>"icp_hit_stale" left at default (off); "miss_access" set to deny access
>to remote proxies (the ones who shouldn't be able to, but are, refreshing
>objects via my proxy).

but, what is a remote administrator to do when your proxy starts returning
obviously bogus data in an ICP/TCP cache-hit scenario?

I trusted operators of neighbour caches to behave the right way (and its
very easy to see that if you run daily analyses of your log files),
but it was useful to give them the ability to attempt to flush
screwed-up data if necessary by connecting manually from the neighbour
cache.

Money wise, if your request amounts are pretty similar, I think you'd
find that the 'loss' is about the same on both sides. For figures I
remember in normal cases cache-hit TCP volumes of neighbours were around
the 98-99% mark (if you're not interfering and returning errors when
you shouldn't be)

James.
Received on Sun Mar 01 1998 - 03:34:52 MST