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

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at
Wed Feb 10 15:41:10 UTC 2010

On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> And no, "omittance of important factors" is not a "factual error" in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic.
> 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.
> 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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list