From owner-freebsd-net Thu Feb 21 14: 1:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d171.as12.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.136.173]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC81737B443 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:00:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g1LG4rFY023013; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:04:53 GMT (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g1LG4owb023010; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:04:52 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:04:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Brian White , Subject: Re: SACK (and older TCP stack) availability? In-Reply-To: <20020221134407.B52538@iguana.icir.org> Message-ID: <20020221160324.R22677-100000@patrocles.silby.com> 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 Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > I actually looked at the patches, and by visual inspection, > they broke the flow for standard TCP connections when SACK > was disabled. This was also verified with TBIT. > So even if the SACK implementation was correct > (which I haven't checked in detail) they are a no-go > unless someone puts significant work on them. > > cheers > luigi Whee! Ok, good to know. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message