From owner-freebsd-net Mon Aug 27 14: 7:47 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 E79E337B401 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:07:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 442 invoked by uid 3193); 27 Aug 2001 21:07:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 21:07:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:07:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack X-Sender: To: Jeffrey Hsu Cc: Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current In-Reply-To: <20010827042218.0648737B405@hub.freebsd.org> 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 Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > Rate-halving is implemented in the PSC version of SACK. Perhaps > we should take a look at that? Makes sense, if we want Rate-halving. All the papers evaluating it have sounded good, and it probably is good to incorporate. My only concern is whether it will be controversial to merge, which is why I think I'd like basic SACK + newreno first, then Rate-halving + FACK later. Of course, that does emply that taking the SACK bits from the PSC implementation might be best then. I'll look more into this. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message