From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-31-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-080-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.80]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F422E01B8 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scan-32-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-32-ewr.local [10.0.141.238]) by mail-31-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C327F6FB0FC for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:43:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 217.32.164.137 Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by mail-31-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF49D6FB041 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:43:07 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.100.81]) by i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:43:07 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 130269138639; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:43:06 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.96.194]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id p3DAh5GJ024824; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:43:05 +0100 Message-Id: <201104131043.p3DAh5GJ024824@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:42:07 +0100 To: Bruce Atherton From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: <4DA48F9B.8080402@callenish.com> References: <4DA48F9B.8080402@callenish.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -1.36 () ALL_TRUSTED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2011 10:43:07.0756 (UTC) FILETIME=[936F8AC0:01CBF9C7] Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Simplified Bloat explanation X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:43:16 -0000 Bruce, The candy factory analogy is a useful one. Thanks However, I wouldn't associate it with the usage-billing issue or with NN. I know that was your original motivation for writing this, but the two issues (bandwith and latency) need to be treated separately. Just because buffer bloat is slowing the little transfers (individual candies), doesn't mean anything about how much bandwidth is needed to transfer predicted volumes of data in reasonable time. That's about how many Ethels are employed to meet total demand for wrapping candies, which could still be an issue (or not) irrespective of whether we take away the hats and buckets. The association with NN & usage-billing merely serves to confuse what is an otherwise helpful explanation. Bob At 18:44 12/04/2011, Bruce Atherton wrote: >For those that are interested, I've written a simplified explanation >of BufferBloat for a nontechnical audience using a classic "I Love >Lucy" episode as an analogy. I wrote it to introduce the concept to >the people fighting Usage Based Billing here in Canada during a >federal election. > >I don't need to get all the details right because this is intended >for the general population, but any feedback about the general >correctness of the description is appreciated. > >http://callenish.blogspot.com/2011/03/usage-based-billing-caused-by-internet.html >_______________________________________________ >Bloat mailing list >Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design