Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:36:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Harkirat Singh <singh@pdx.edu> Cc: Dave Zarzycki <zarzycki@FreeBSD.ORG>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108280135001.77248-100000@niwun.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0108271751490.27335-100000@gere.odin.pdx.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Harkirat Singh wrote: > I agree with your comment that FCAK is only a retransmission algorithm and > many papers recommends that FACK+SACK improves the performance for > long-delay network (for more information look at 1996 SIGCOMM paper). I've been reading through the papers I've found, digesting the content slowly. Implementing FACK and/or rate halving after SACK is all in place and working seems like a good idea, if the papers are correct. > I would say that it would be nice to have SACK+FACK+NewReno and all have a > sysctl so that user can use it at will. This facility will give the > leverage to people who want to test the performance of TCP in the presence > of NewReno, Sack and Fack. Agreed. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0108280135001.77248-100000>