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) >
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée