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

[Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lloyd

If that is a significant risk, then why did IPv6 not move
to a better protection when it was changing the other things
in the nw/xport interface? After all there were much
better c/s - such as Fletcher - that were well known
at the time?

Stewart


On 15/12/2015 00:32, lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> If the content is not understood by anyone except the intended endpoint 
> the occasional misdelivery is surely of no consequence.

There's still a risk of port pollution (IPv4) or destination pollution (IPv6)

from misdeliveries without checksums.

not understood != not handled and pushed up the stack. 

 

Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood 

---

From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx>; Alexey Eromenko <al4321@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Jared Mauch <jared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 December 2015, 10:04
Subject: Re: Checksum at IP layer - is it even needed ?

On 14/12/2015 21:55, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> I suppose: "Why are we trying to solve this in tcp/udp? why not solve
> this at the application layer with TLS?" .

Yes, I was wondering about this.

If the content is not understood by anyone except the intended endpoint
the occasional misdelivery is surely of no consequence.

Stewart

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html