- From: James R Grinter <jrg@demon.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:45:46 +0000
- To: Mike Gahan <ccaamrg@ucl.ac.uk>, www-talk@w3.org
On Fri 13 Dec, 1996, Mike Gahan <ccaamrg@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: >The principal difference is from the point of view of the browser. A >mirror must be explicitly selected, outside of the normal caching >mechanism. If the mirror is viewed as a special purpose, limited topic I notice two products just arriving on the market that are trying to address these issues: [1]Cisco's Distributed Director, and [2]Genuity's Hopscotch. Those interested in how they've attempted to solve the problem might find some useful information below. The approaches, in the main, seem to revolve around 302 redirects to the closest content, combined with utilising wide-area network protocols to find the closest to the client. Cisco's distributed director can also perform a similar trick but acting as a DNS server, which I think is more interesting. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Genuity are selling it as a service rather than a software/hardware product. -- jrg. [1] http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/distdir/index.html [2] http://hopscotch.genuity.net/
Received on Friday, 13 December 1996 07:45:54 UTC