Re: Checksum at IP layer - is it even needed ?

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

 



On 14 December 2015 at 17:38, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hey,

> * Slow-down of Core Routers.

Citation needed. I believe checksum and CRC are linerate and pretty
much free in terms of pincount, transistor and thermal.

> Any advantages ?
> * prevents single mis-routed packets, or a bad option from getting through.

Prevents packet mangling, if done right. If there is L3 CRC (not
checksum, it's too weak) which excludes changing data (hop count) and
specification mandates that it's not recalculated on egress, but
ingress value is reused. Then it will guarantee that router or switch
does not mangle the data.

> Quick result: besides ATM, everybody else seems to cover both headers
> and all data.

Arbitrarily strong guarantee at L2 does not guarantee integrity at L3.
Routers and switches (not fibres/copper!) mangle data and calculate
correct L2 CRC on the broken data.
I've unfortunately seen[0] this several times in real networks and I
know other[1] networks who've seen it as well . I got lucky and was
using IPv4, which made the error visible in egress LER's, had I been
running IPv6 only, I would have never known that I'm mangling some
packets.

[0] http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-January/063654.html
     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/current/msg12457.html
[1] http://www.evanjones.ca/tcp-and-ethernet-checksums-fail.html

-- 
  ++ytti




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