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)