The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
After releasing the initial version of the the Internet Revealed at RIPE59 in Lisbon last year, we received some valuable feedback from the wider IXP community. We took this feedback to the producers of the film and now have a slightly edited version 2.0 of the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5837LcDHfE Enjoy Serge Radovcic Euro-IX
Cool video, it explains better than I can, I think I will show this to my colleagues rather than failing to simplify an explanation to them. -- Regards, James ;) Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach - "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marie_von_ebnereschenbac.html
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 07:06 +0100, Serge Radovcic wrote:
Excellent production. Sometimes it's hard for those who have been so involved in maintaining the grounds to describe what the forest looks like to common folk. Perhaps as a followup to this video, you could make another one that explains some of the history of the IXP, how diverse they can be and how they are evolving to meet the demands of the next generation of content distribution and the distributed shared computing resources. -- /*=================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]=================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | -------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==================================================================*/
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote:
Excellent production.
... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:55 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote:
Excellent production.
... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned).
Well, yes. Obviously it is meant to highlight the roles of public exchanges. That much is obvious. And given the source of the production it would seem to be expected. It did touch on private interconnects although you're right to point out that it doesn't weigh in on the pros and cons of public vs private peering, shared switch fabric vs direct connections, etc. But in a 5 min video, I wouldn't expect it to nor would I expect it to be appropriate for its intended audience. I didn't think this was supposed to be a screen adaptation of Norton's peering whitepapers. -- /*=================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]=================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | -------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==================================================================*/
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote:
Excellent production.
... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned).
Could you point to a single factual error please? That is a serious charge to just throw out without a single word to back up your claim. And no, "omittance of important factors" is not a "factual error" in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic. Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video. -- TTFN, patrick
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. 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.
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. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 02/10/2010 09:46 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
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.
But it introduces the audience to the idea that the packets *could* be routed over multiple paths in principle, even if it would constitute evidence of abnormal operation to have this happen within a single session. I think that's the intended take-away, from a pedagogical perspective. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
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. -- TTFN, patrick
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.
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. 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. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
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
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 <patrick@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 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 -- -- darren@bolding.org --
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)
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)
On 2/10/2010 7:55 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jake Khuon wrote:
Excellent production.
I'll go with that.
... but still an advertisement for use of IXPs instead of private peering or alike. I'd say it contains several factual errors or at least omittance of important factors (settlement free peering in other ways than IXPs, for instance, is hardly mentioned).
Could you point to a single factual error please? That is a serious charge to just throw out without a single word to back up your claim.
And no, "omittance of important factors" is not a "factual error" in a 5 minute video of a wide and amazingly complex topic.
Put another way: If you think you can do better, then let's see your video.
That is definitely the best answer--if you don't like it, do one (at your expense of time and other resources) that you like better. I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk). Amazing how many people there are that can't do it, but can find fault with those that can and do. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Larry Sheldon wrote:
That is definitely the best answer--if you don't like it, do one (at your expense of time and other resources) that you like better.
Zzz.
I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk).
I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points. This video is something i could show my mother when she asks "how the Internet works" and thats pretty much it.
Amazing how many people there are that can't do it, but can find fault with those that can and do.
So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion?
On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jay Ess wrote:
I think I am probably a member of the target audience, and I though it was great (and recommended it to other folk).
I like it for what it was. But i agree with Mike's points. This video is something i could show my mother when she asks "how the Internet works" and thats pretty much it.
There are 100s of people in my company who could benefit from seeing the video, and probably quite a few on this very list. Not everyone who works on the Internet is a routing engineer. -- TTFN, patrick
On 2/10/2010 9:42 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Not everyone who works on the Internet is a routing engineer.
I(including some who bill themselves as such. But that is for a different rant. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Ess [mailto:lists@netrogenic.com] Sent: 10 February 2010 15:29 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Internet Revealed - A film about IXPs v2.0: now available
So, for example, if i don't like how a car works i must be able to build a car to be allowed to voice my opinion?
If you're opinion is that your car is somehow faulty because it doesn't work like your bicycle does you shouldn't be surprised when people choose to ignore it.
Very cool production. For the duration and intended audience it looks like a nice and very clear documentary about how the "net" works. For insiders the last minute may feel borderline with science fiction and advertising but I see no evil. I think it was a great contribution from Euro-IX to relax the copyright. I can go with this video to my daughter's elementary school and the kids will most probably "get it", and they won't give a squat about IP, BGP, ECMP, IXP oranyotherP. Relax, it's just a video Cheers Jorge
participants (15)
-
Alex Balashov -
Chris Campbell -
Darren Bolding -
Jake Khuon -
James Bensley -
Jay Ess -
Jorge Amodio -
Larry Sheldon -
Michael Hallgren -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Serge Radovcic -
Suresh Ramasubramanian