Re: Squid vs. Netscape Proxy

Michael Ferioli wrote:
>
> At 09:24 AM 4/21/98 -0400, Michael Pelletier wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Michael Ferioli wrote:
> >
> >> At 09:12 AM 4/21/98 +1200, Joe Abley wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I think the original poster was talking about distributing three caches
> >> >(or cache clusters) in the wide area. A cluster of unix boxes running
> >> >squid in each city (with round-robin DNS set up to spread load across each
> >> >machine in the cluster) should work pretty well.
> >>
> >> Exactly. But do you really think DNS round robin is a good solution?
> >> Why would an Ankara user use the Istanbul Cache? That wastes
> >> bandwidth which kind of defeats the whole idea of proxying.
> >
> >If that's the case, then proxy.pac is the clear solution -- just use the
> >"myIpAddressIs()" function and the "isInNet()" function and pick the
> >appropriate proxy server based on that. However, the original poster
> >mentioned "CARP," which is a load-balancing, cache-sharing protocol, isn't
> >it?
>
> Yes, there is no question that .pac files will work, but for which browsers?
> Someone said earlier in the list that IE4 broke autoconfig. Is that
> true?

It was probably me, and it's variably true. There's definite breakage
and fragility. How much depends on what you do with it, and the phase of
the moon and the weather. I've even seen it work perfectly...twice.
Really.

But - as Mike-P said - I also thought that CARP was not dissimilar in
goals to ICP, although I can mentally expand the acronym and that makes
it sound different 'something-array-redundant-proxies' perhaps?

Whatever. The only thing that I've seen that uses CARP had a choice: ICP
or CARP, with pretty much the same config options for either. I suspect
CARP may be ICP+something more. ICP on steroids, if you will.

D

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d- s++: a C++++$ UL++++B+++S+++C++H++U++V+++$ P+++$ L+++ E-
W+++(--)$ N++ w++$>--- t+ 5++ X+() R+ tv b++++ DI+++ e- h-@ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------