[122248] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Wed Feb 10 10:54:12 2010
X-Envelope-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:53:25 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1002101534470.31777@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/02/2010 14:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think it's highly biased
> towards promoting IXPs,
Uh, it was produced and paid for by IXPs for the intention of promoting
IXPs. Why do you have an issue with this?
> 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.
Call me glib, but if you can get the association of PNI providers together
to create a movie about what PNIs are and how they work, I'd be ok if they
glossed over IXPs.
> 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.
ECMP? Per packet load balancing, even? Again, the point they were making
is that the path from A to B is not particularly important to the data
being transferred.
Look, the creators of the movie had 5 minutes to explain something so that
regular Janes and Joes would understand, rather than 1 hour to give a nerdy
in-depth explanation of the nuts and bolts of IXPs. Personally, I think
they did a rather good job.
Nick
(day job: contract IXP operations)
