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)
