On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 12:38 PM <chia-yu.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Chia-Yu Chang <chia-yu.chang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > As SACK blocks tend to eat all option space when there are > many holes, it is useful to compromise on sending many SACK > blocks in every ACK and attempt to fit the AccECN option > there by reducing the number of SACK blocks. However, it will > never go below two SACK blocks because of the AccECN option. > > As the AccECN option is often not put to every ACK, the space > hijack is usually only temporary. Depending on the length of > AccECN option (can be either 11, 8, 5, or 2 bytes, cf. Table > 5 in AccECN spec) and the NOPs used for alignment of other > TCP options, up to two SACK blocks will be reduced. I think it would be nice to study how AccECN and SACK compression play together ?
