> On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net> wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Fawcett, Nick <nfawc...@corp.mtco.com> said:
>> We had three onsite Akamai caches a few months ago. They called us up and
>> said they are removing that service and sent us boxes to pack up the
>> hardware and ship back. We’ve had quite the increase in DIA traffic as a
>> result of it.
>
> Same here. We'd had Akamai servers for many years, replaced as needed
> (including one failed servre replaced right before they turned them
> off). Now about 50% of our Akamai traffic comes across transit links,
> not peering. This seems like it would be rather inefficient for them
> too…
There’s an element of scale when it comes to certain content that makes it not
viable if the majority of traffic is VOD with variable bitrates it requires a
lot more capital.
Things like downloads of software updates (eg: patch Tuesday) lend themselves
to different optimizations. The hardware has a cost as well as the bandwidth
as well.
I’ll say that most places that have a few servers may only see a minor
improvement in their in:out. If you’re not peering with us or are and see
significant traffic via transit, please do reach out.
I’m happy to discuss in private or at any NANOG/IETF meeting people are at. We
generally have someone at most of the other NOG meetings as well, including
RIPE, APRICOT and even GPF etc.
I am personally always looking for better ways to serve the medium (or small)
size providers better.
- Jared
