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 points. 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 <[email protected]>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 > 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. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > -- -- Darren Bolding -- -- [email protected] --
