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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
How much did you pay for the video?
I(including some who bill themselves as such.
But that is for a different rant.
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.
> 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?How much did you pay for the video?
What does that matter? Whether you paid for it or not, inaccurate information
being passed on is a bad thing (I'm not making any claims about this video.
"shut up you didn't pay for it" is just a singularly annoying line of argument
in situations like 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.
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.
> 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
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.