Jonathan Stone <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu> writes:
> But there are a number of other implementations of SACK for the BSD
> TCP stack, some of which have been widely tested, deployed, and not
> least, had some review by leading members TCP/IP research community.

SACK is not like slow start or what have you -- it doesn't need
careful tuning and there aren't subtle bugs you can introduce in
careful calculations. What it needs is to work with our stack, and the
way our TCP reassembly queues etc. work is not the same as that on
other BSDs any more.

If the implementation works and is clean there is little harm in
adopting it.


Perry