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
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
