Re: An opes usage question.

"John G. Waclawsky" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.opes
Organization Cisco Systems
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Thanks for your comments Hilarie. My comments are in-line below.

The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:

>If the billing is based on actual bytes delivered to the consumer,
>there must be a business relationship between the billing stage
>servers and adaptation servers.  The relationship will usually allow
>
I think we are talking about the same thing which I have been calling a 
"flow participant discovery" problem (not a services discovery problem). 
The question is how, within the opes framework, do I establish this 
business relationship between two proxies in different stages of a 
services pipeline separated by a load balancer. Packets can travel 
through the billing server and later be changed by any adaptation proxy 
where (in the billing by bytes case) bytes could be reduced 
(compression) or increased (adding banners or advertisements or other 
correlated content). Because of previous e-mails I have been considering 
both the billing server and any adaptation servers as opes proxies. ...I 
believe this is the simplest opes environment.

>the adaptation servers to cache the content and report to the billing
>servers about the number of bytes delivered.  However, the reporting
>is a reverse flow in the client-server model, and that is why it seems
>problematical.  By convention, the adaptation server might make a
>
I agree the reverse flow is a problem.

>request back to the provider with the number of bytes encoded in the
>request, or it might, on occasion, upload a report.  The rules
>governing this behavior would most naturally be encoded on the
>adaptation server, not on the OPES callout server.  So, this seems to
>me to be an issue for the rules language.
>
I am not following your logic here. I am working with a simple proxy to 
proxy opes framework and not doing any callouts. Am I missing something? 
Please clarify.

>
>An alternative model would have this byte reporting functionality
>handled on the callout server, and it would directly contact
>the provider's billing service with reports.
>
>Hilarie
>
>  
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.