The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
darren at bolding.org
Wed Feb 10 19:06:13 CST 2010
Look, it's a very nice video, and I think it is useful and the creators
should be complimented on their work. Overall it is something I would like
to use to educate less IP-savvy folk.
But, as a hyper-aware viewer I did detect a tone in favor of "network
neutrality" type arguments- and I suppose that is OK.
One thing I found that didn't match with my recollection is that it depicts
IXP's as a response to private peering. My recollection was that while the
earliest peering may have been some private peering, rapidly MAE-EAST etc.
became points of major traffic sharing and large scale private
peering/interconnects were a response to the issues at the various meeting
Perhaps my recollection is incorrect?
And aren't most exchanges today effectively private interconnects across a
shared L2 device?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 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.
> > 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
> 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.
-- Darren Bolding --
-- darren at bolding.org --
More information about the NANOG