Comparison of DECADE with CDNi
draft-zhang-decade-cdni-comparison-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Peng Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2012-09-06 (Latest revision 2012-03-05) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document gives a brief comparison of DECADE and CDNi, two working groups on content delivery. CDNi aims at overcoming the limited resource and footprints of a single CDN by interconnecting multiple CDNs. While DECADE is mainly concerned with reducing the last-mile bandwidth bottleneck and inter-domain traffics with in- network storage. This in-network storage can also be utilized by Content Service Providers (CSPs) as a CDN, whose footprints be across multiple Internet Service Providers (CSPs). In this sense, DECADE can also be a possible approach to overcome the limited footprints of a single CDN. This document attempts to gain some understanding on the relationship of these two solutions.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)