From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 7 22:04:41 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BE616A406 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:04:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AFA13C491 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:04:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from relay5.apple.com (relay5.apple.com [17.128.113.35]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l27LRKmD007565; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay5.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay5.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 88D3C29C006; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807123-9e91ebb000004462-c7-45ef2e3802a0 Received: from [17.214.13.96] (cswiger1.apple.com [17.214.13.96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 724CC30400B; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000301c760fa$df57eb40$9e07c1c0$@net> References: <000301c760fa$df57eb40$9e07c1c0$@net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Chuck Swiger Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:27:19 -0800 To: Justin Robertson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW SACK options X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:04:41 -0000 On Mar 7, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Justin Robertson wrote: [ ... ] > Due to the nature of the current performance disparity between > 6.x (I > assume this is due to the work on making processes thread > friendly?) and > 4.11 (still kicking arse) I'm sticking with the 4.11 branch - and > here comes > my question. If someone is interested, could you work up an option > to allow > removal of the sackOK (sack permitted negotiation) on SYN packets, > and then > pass the SYN packet on with the tcpoption for sack stripped? Perhaps trying: sysctl net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=0 ...will do what you are looking for? -- -Chuck