Re: The TCP and UDP checksum algorithm may soon need updating

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 10 June 2020 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA923A0838 for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KUUnQ055m5M for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91353A0831 for <>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v24so294637plo.6 for <>; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=6OQr5l/qhLjkBMbsj3M0OI39t1LF5oqnf//Hfq6H+yw=; b=gO64JH5CQuqzEYEQ4t0/22bSYivG3ga9OF4Y07NLdVAw5svI5ddRPHCwaLOApkd70+ gqOCcv6chUyAkV/fmycPzDYOTpePCePYmLB4QnQFmgKf/TkKrWqTqNOwi2Cx3KcOG/ca BeTtwMxjbQawBEQheETLQX1jfWl+6JA8vUL9GR4rIWqA1Np//D11jbaeXUe3Woa/2qsl y24BJFoHqvt8qJf5pYrlPcE0vlNMcq0frUxqKKwjk+pGUiCnAPKvr6d4u+Vfp+GkR22S /+KJ9e0gpQ9nA18e5iZf6hJXgE8hnMrLy0/jROgublzvSwqWA7Mp7Iry6BZ/kv90D0vr MZRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=6OQr5l/qhLjkBMbsj3M0OI39t1LF5oqnf//Hfq6H+yw=; b=smQG2oIRp85eYDtBZZSOPmB6OltNnb+jt+3uMEZix8xZ4Sn4jfq5i+vTIOctZoKLh3 hMSoQ4F9bWTpGEl48pKGBfwjhR5NQ44Dn0HUpyZXz6jMVN1mJhBPAwDI5xRs/bPmWZ5X FYkk2ypQ309dhd31s+uIKD7gRh4/LF7Q4GKH21ZYzEnDE8L3U++M52eATUMW7EMfT27K BzCDJkkIteCnVA2PLfCkaBjaX4kMThKXXqP7UZuZatDL9q0QLf43aEsbPqqypWpRWI5E ts6r4R8ADyfnDy1tpphJLhXnUFLNKaq555S4hXvqRTkA25H8aRe7toJ6o6x0PnVFhIEc LCiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cCYGpy9m/NQxmZ74J1YAQncmO1a0bEoDz0F+jrJOT2VGZ5mjT etdZU/DbU4G86g8jv6umN2ZR4dE+Ptg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeDERaRS2R9N7F9gI/NSuYGT0q37E+/SPZ/0WlGZJJlxwONsMBVNMxvvglF59HHfGKGPyJOQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:3324:: with SMTP id m33mr570100pjb.181.1591752201671; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MichaelsMacBook.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t2sm9474683pgh.89.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: The TCP and UDP checksum algorithm may soon need updating
References: <> <> <20200610001225.GD3100@localhost> <> <rbpbpp$2fgp$>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:23:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rbpbpp$2fgp$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 01:23:26 -0000

On 6/9/20 6:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <>om>,
> Michael Thomas  <> wrote:
>> So the long and short of this entire issue seems to be is, is the
>> uncaught error rate serious enough that warrant rethinking weak
>> transport and frankly L2 layer error detection? ...
> Having read the papers that Craig referenced, that's my interpretation.
> One of them is about a big physics application which sends multiple
> terabytes of data over the net using what looks like a version of
> FTP that transfers several files at once.  They send the data as a lot
> of of 4 gig files. When they started verifying file checksums, they
> found about 20% of the received files were corrrupted in transit.
> In that application they resend the corrupt files and they obviously
> need make the files smaller. But retransmitting a file at a time seems
> a lot less efficient than improving the checksums and using the
> existing TCP packet level retransmission.
Which pretty much makes a case for something like transport mode ipsec, 
right? it's a hell of a lot cheaper to drop a packet than retransmit an 
entire file, right?

I guess this gets chalked up to false efficiencies. Thankfully we're a 
point where a lot of these tradeoffs aren't quite as hand-wringing.