Re: re the plenary discussion on partial checksums

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

 



On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, 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

A lot of folks seem to forget that from the point of view of IP L2
includes the busses between memory and the L2 network interface.  There
have been more than a few recorded cases where packet errors were
introduced as the packet flowed in or out of memory, unprotected by link
CRCs.

To my way of thinking we don't need a bit in the IP header, we need a bit
in the heads of implementors to remind them that relying on link-by-link
protection can be dangerous even if the links have strong CRCs.

> ... IP option to provide a stronger checksum than normally exists

The last time I saw a comparision of checksum algorithm strengths was back 
in the OSI days when the IP checksum was compared to the OSI Fletcher 
checksum (my memory is that the IP checksum came in second.)

		--karl--




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