[122246] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Feb 10 10:41:36 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1002101534470.31777@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:41:10 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>=20
>> And no, "omittance of important factors" is not a "factual error" in =
a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic.
>=20
> I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased =
towards promoting IXPs, and it gives the impression that private peering =
isn't settlement free and that it can't be used to do what an IXP does. =
It just doesn't say so explicitly, but implies that it is so by the flow =
of how things are said and in what order. It sets private connects =
against IXPs, and then describes all things an IXP can be used for, thus =
giving the impression that the PNI can't do this.
Agree to disagree is right. The film is called "The Internet Revealed: =
_A_film_about_IXPs_". You find it strange that the film would actually =
focus on IXPs. I find it strange that you couldn't figure this out =
before clicking play.
As for implying private x-conns are paid for, I did not get that at all. =
They start with the fact some companies use private connections and say =
"more and more traffic is flowing through shared service platforms we =
call Internet Exchange Points". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
> But one factual error for instance, a TCP session (a picture being =
transfrred) doesn't take multiple paths, that's just wrong to say so. So =
showing a picture being chopped up in packets and sent over different =
paths, well that just doesn't happen in normal operation.
That's just wrong to say? Thank you for proving yourself not qualified =
to discuss the subject at hand.
>> Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your =
video.
>=20
> I'm very happy someone is willing to do these kinds of videos, and if =
you don't want peoples feedback, then just say so.
Me? I had nothing to do with the video.
That said, I will concede that you should not have to make your own to =
be allow to comment on someone else's. (See point in Jay's post about =
making cars.)
However, I do believe you should know how the Internet works. And if =
you honestly believe packets in a single stream cannot travel over =
different paths, you clearly do not. And before you come back with BS =
about "normal operation" or such, realize your statement was far more =
"factually incorrect" than what the video said about private =
interconnects.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
