[122281] 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 18:31:39 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1002101746360.31777@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:30:59 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> If it would have said "The internet revealed - an advertisement for =
IXPs" I might have been expecting the thing I got.
It's a matter of degree, right?
>> 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
> I'm saying they don't normally do so, as one might believe when =
looking at the movie. Any core router ECMP algorithm that sprays L4 =
sessions like that will cause re-ordering which is bad, mkay.
Yes, flow switching is common, but it is by no means guaranteed. Lots =
of people do per-packet across LAG bundles. The Internet topology =
changes do not wait until all TCP sessions are complete. Not everyone =
does flow switching. Etc.
Which all means, as I said in my last sentence above, that you are doing =
exactly what you accuse them of doing - only worse. Your "facts" are =
not facts, the most you can accuse this video of is not explaining =
things fully.
I guess the only question left is: What are you advertising?
> But I'll shut up after this, I'm obviously not jaded enough like you =
other people to just swallow this as "advertisement". I expected a =
correct factual way of describing how the Internet works including IXPs, =
not an IXP advertisement. My expectations were obviously wrong from the =
response I'm seeing.
I wouldn't call you "jaded" when you do what you accuse others of doing.
And to be clear, you got "a correct factual way of describing how the =
Internet works including IXPs". It may not have been complete, but if =
you honestly expected a complete description of the Internet in a film =
of /any/ length ... well, words fail me.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
