Re: Squid 2 - ?huh? why two ICP ports?

On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 09:30:23PM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Steven Sporen wrote:
> > Which is better? Does squid choose which to use? Thanx.

[snip]

> I don't think HTCP ever will gain a larger acceptance. It uses quite a
> bit more bandwidth than ICP to solve some minor problems with ICP, and
> today peering designs are moving away from query protocols like ICP or
> HTCP because it requires to much bandwidth and causes latency.

Hi Henrik,

what exactly do you mean with 'peering designs are moving away from
query protocols like ICP or HTCP'. Are you saying that future peering
will be exclusivly done witch Cache-Digests or other 'Content-Exchange'
mechanism ???

I would be really disappointed if this is true, because Cache-Digests
are expensive if you have multiple peers and a low-bandwidth link.
I moved away from Cache-Digests, because they stall client connections
and are TCP based (retransmits). I can live with lost ICP requests,
but updating digests every n minutes from peers with large caches is
not the way to go if you have limited bandwidth.

Consider I have five peers and they have different update times for
their digests. I would request new digests at 13:10, 13:20, 13:30,
13:40 and 13:50 for example.

BTW, my uplink is 128kBit/sec.

This mail is longer than I wanted. If anything above sounds offending,
take my word that it's not intentional. I just want to clearly state
what I think about moving away from ICP.

Thanks for reading,
Patrick
Received on Thu Mar 25 1999 - 16:59:51 MST