Re: re the plenary discussion on partial checksums

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ok, I have to ask a silly question (not like that would be a first on this list)

Why, oh WHY would I want to receive a known corrupted packet ?

Are we talking about someone thinks they can eeke out 1% more performance
because their phy/mac can cut over immediately rather than wait for the packet
and verify the checksum ??? (or compute it on the sending side)

I guess I don't see the benefit, I guess rather than a hardware L2 check, you 
rely on something in your hardware later up to fail a check (including a L7
protocol) and drop the frame there ???

I wish I had been there to see the discussion

Bill


On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:21:47PM -0400, John Stracke wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> >so it seems like what we need is a bit in the IP header to indicate that
> >L2 integrity checks are optional, and to specify for various kinds of
> >IP-over-FOO how to implement that bit in FOO.
> >  
> >
> How would an app know to set this bit? The problem is that different L2s 
> will have different likelihoods of corruption; you may decide that it's 
> safe to set the bit on Ethernet, but not on 802.11*.  And, in general, 
> the app doesn't know all of the L2s that may be involved when it sends a 
> packet.
> 
> -- 
> /==========================================\
> |John Stracke      |jstracke@centive.com   |
> |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
> |Centive           |My opinions are my own.|
> |==========================================|
> |Linux: the Unix defragmentation tool.     |
> \==========================================/
> 
> 


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]