From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 08:19:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B139016A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AEB43D1D for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:19:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 46723 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 16:19:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 Mar 2004 16:19:09 -0000 Message-ID: <404C9CF3.CBC11F30@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:18:59 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Tinguely References: <200403081605.i28G5arD037139@casselton.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: rizzo@icir.org Subject: Re: My planned work on networking stack X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:19:10 -0000 Mark Tinguely wrote: > > > > > This reminded me - do you know what happened to the plan to implement > > > SACK for FreeBSD? I'm working with a research group that's interested > > > > what plan, there never was one :) > > > > cheers > > luigi (who wrote some FreeBSD SACK code back in 1996!) > > There has been the "enternal" debate, clean up the stack and/or add features > or the resistance to commit the clean up and/or new features. I think these days are over and I have committed a couple of larger changes in the IP code a couple month ago with more to come. So if you have new stuff, bring it on and we will judge it on its merits and code quality. > IMO, in the world that is growing ever more wireless, SACK, ECN, and RFC3042 > *should be* automatically in the TCP stack or we are at a competitive > disadvantage. These could be added pretty easily. RFC3042 is already in (done by Jeffrey Hsu) and defaults to enable in -CURRENT along with Inflight and RFC3390. -- Andre