[e2e] Skype and congestion collapse.

[Michael Welzl]

> Why would Skype be worse than RealVideo, which continuously sends at 
> hundreds of kb/sec, or internet radio, which does no silence 

You're doing the Real folks wrong: in our tests, RealVideo _DID_ react to
congestion. The way it did so was a little strange, but what the heck,
eventually it reduced its rate. Having tested a number of other
applications, I'd say that this is more than you could hope for  :-)


> Congestion collapse is a well-defined term.   It's not the plural of 

I disagree:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc896.txt
versus
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/papers/cr1.htm
versus
http://www.icir.org/floyd/end2end-paper.html

... three entirely different reasons for a similar effect.
So how is it defined? I think we all share the general idea that the
"collapse" is when the network just becomes unusable, but I'm
not sure whether we have a really concise definition that is generally
agreed upon.


Cheers,
Michael