Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes: > On 05/17/2018 04:23 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> >> We don't do full parsing of SACKs, no; we were trying to keep things >> simple... We do detect the presence of SACK options, though, and the >> presence of SACK options on an ACK will make previous ACKs be considered >> redundant. >> > > But they are not redundant in some cases, particularly when reorders > happen in the network.
Huh. I was under the impression that SACKs were basically cumulative until cleared. I.e., in packet sequence ABCDE where B and D are lost, C would have SACK(B) and E would have SACK(B,D). Are you saying that E would only have SACK(D)? -Toke