[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possibly moving Debian services to a CDN




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 8/02/2014 11:46 AM, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Have you been trying to reach out to other CDN providers about supporting Debian? I know of discussions with Amazon CloudFront, but I remember some technical blockers? Could the DPL be of some help to you in that process?
>
> I am in active discussion with another CDN provider and I should restart the
> CloudFront conversation.  There are technical considerations with Fastly, also,
> that Tollef will work through.
>
> We've always been of the opinion that we need two CDN providers.  We're just
> as concerned about vendor lock-in as anyone.


Hello Luca, all,

http://cloudfront.debian.net/ is continuing to do some traffic. It is also offering CDN acceleration for debian-cd and cdimage. We set up a second CDN distribution, http://cloudfront-security.debian.net/; however at this point in time CloudFront does not support IPv6. CloudFront now has 51 edge locations worldwide (having added Rio de Janerio, Taipei, Manila, Marseille and Warsaw recently) and supports custom SSL certificates if (Debian) want to do this.

Using the Debian http redirection service at http://http.debian.net/ is perhaps a preferred approach as it allows real time redirection to the desired CDN service.

I'm happy to give any DD access to the AWS account that is running this; please mail me (gpg signed) off list.

As to lock in - CloudFront is an http cache network - stop handing out the cloudfront.debian.net URL and traffic naturally drops off; nothing else do to.

 James
 

- --
/Mobile:/ +61 422 166 708, /Email:/ james_AT_rcpt.to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
 
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS9cVEAAoJEK7IKHSdhcU8G7IQAI32rECjmo8/lNeLP5Z4jn+T
KqqmEqoyKAX1cDFP0PFHZZPocWeTZM9p5B5u+hnGcf4gj8umjmFM7XzP3EwlSYM1
QOiOlRfGuNsp871Rnhwdw3pslEiOX2vdg7V4Mjcbo+NX0MNY+Vu2XqDoie5SSgE0
eSR/0quV9o9a22A6CkO5lmmtgOnWSSYsFUFOutdPseQmTKYn5J9Qc4wLOIO4Z0CI
X+ANOlK6RMeg4CwiBNezxa4xkTQcg6TvqOt9r0/rxWNCYsWPnCyFel4Iykctqt99
yjrkMga8dDWgKqegB7awINu701z9SVbVqpWkiM+E3+5ZpDDshbwf78uR6BiliXP6
ZY860SSXhX12EWrlEIcamZXZMbh0xZrWITuFksoXMnQZK45S6TU5JYPhVPnWoLou
kM99eBcJhNyiqZawH1nTulsP4DM9vYRDt+kb9g3L8HSBhkYmCN0Gz5iPzEpXZ/Ef
b4VhKOegPfiT1cjHLqltNxZvJ8gN1L4X4LJ2bVu56qDCgqj83r5vtRVfI5RI53TB
U8itPGsZHgxXtOG8Hqyji8YjUT7i60ZAok9kMKgZ7lBdNt1Cv0SYN8yRl2pf1Ru5
pqyIjxUsBSNFFPkSAh01cXrHvhK+EonbxGFcrW2xSdXXLr5KgkM9kN/vjtzgLPfS
t1zIIRKge1YN+5z4n35T
=2A80
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: