From owner-freebsd-net Mon Aug 27 22:37: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from niwun.pair.com (niwun.pair.com [209.68.2.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 972B137B406 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 77533 invoked by uid 3193); 28 Aug 2001 05:36:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 05:36:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:36:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack X-Sender: To: Harkirat Singh Cc: Dave Zarzycki , Alfred Perlstein , Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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