John Hawkinson writes:
> It's not apparent to me that this will translate into your seeing
> an improvement in cases where your losses are due to bad/lossy
> links rather than due to congestion. I wouldn't be surprised if SACK
> turned out to be a win in such cases, but I also wouldn't be surprised
> if it made things worse.

The links I'm on are bad and lossy because of congestion, not
electrical problems...

I've already looked at it. Much of my personal bandwidth problem comes
from multiple losses in exactly the way that SACK helps.

Perry