From owner-freebsd-net Mon Aug 27 22:39:13 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 9C41937B407 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:39:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 77681 invoked by uid 3193); 28 Aug 2001 05:39:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 05:39:09 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:39:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack X-Sender: To: "Louis A. Mamakos" Cc: Harkirat Singh , Dave Zarzycki , Alfred Perlstein , Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current In-Reply-To: <200108280249.f7S2nOZ62047@whizzo.transsys.com> 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, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > I don't think that a drive-by commit of some other related work without > a commitment to understand the code in a very deep way is wise. > > If you consider the dynamic range that the TCP retransmit timers need to > operate over, it's a truly frighting thing, and folks ought not to be > anxious screw with the implementation lightly. > > louie By the time something gets committed, it will certainly be well tested, and sysctl controlable. If the testing doesn't seem sufficient at that time, you're more than welcome to throw in scenarios it should be tested under. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message