The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available

Wed Feb 10 22:05:07 UTC 2010

Le mercredi 10 février 2010 à 15:53 +0000, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> 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.

Good point.

> 
> > 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.
> 

So do I.

Cheers,

mh

> Nick
> (day job: contract IXP operations)
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100210/2dab771c/attachment.sig>