Michael Graff writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> > I don't know, but SACK is one of the most important developments in
> > TCP in years. In conditions where more than a couple of packets in a
> > row drop, ordinary TCP dies a horrible death, but TCP with SACK keeps
> > on working. SACK is about to become an IETF standard, and it would be
> > a Very Very Very Good Thing if we put it into our kernels.
> 
> Do both sides of the link have to be SACK aware, or if just one is will that
> be better than nothing?

Both sides must be SACK aware, unfortunately.

However, even just having my sups and rCVS work faster would be a big
win. Heck, about 80% of my long range long duration transfers are over
bad links with other NetBSD hosts. SACK would make a lot of that work
far better for me. Also, once we have the feature, the FreeBSD people
will put it in place and the Linux people won't let us show them up,
so that will take care of a nice fraction of the world's web sites and
such.

Perry