IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 05 June 2020 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F13B3A11F0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFc3rmII7GPO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A6C03A11E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 21:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KKIHdBGA3lpIaSu4YkZh1UCVRszCD4o+APnPjtKqxSU=; b=bCxh4hBBUeI+htDRlKMBdtVc+ KYuT5JHi5LwwAxaBGjF+suKUtNbmUhRkrdKxWdqSzFgj6TljqBZJvtetNpGT6RjNqd/DhzEEaPfom qQXKzb2J6aJL0E4s60eVMMoRiXUtjydLUji0zCL4FrymoMawewvQSulUQbrronSH2ifDrSoGbiGPN fjK7y+neJaXTftDVQIekLV73NwlUc+VT1oc4hJBlV2gwr36NufpilVimwdDXWWbgN+JH8C3a2rVzu ccnuGZ+p573UZgld+Av2WDlYVrFHCllquQxp3M9GlO2qxUH4+hW46bD4kzi6i2D3FZKeUnR42fymH oHWOGZ6ww==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:58037 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jh3Xg-001Hgs-Az; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:01:20 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2C2AFB29-2055-4AA5-A77E-432EBEB86684"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: The TCP and UDP checksum algorithm may soon need updating
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwj=5h_zgm0=fD6AjbLmsg91ctv7a6pW0fh8L9o38C1GmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 21:01:15 -0700
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <76F7B5D1-27E3-467C-9375-0030AD5B839F@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAHQj4Cem6YdTXKFPW6Mk6gK9Yt_2qD=M7PAE6nxFEdJrD==ZVA@mail.gmail.com> <8CDB0383-41B9-4D10-BCA8-FF6FC7AFF2DD@huitema.net> <db8943fc-5cd3-9ea7-2876-a5468216d86f@huitema.net> <CAMm+Lwj=5h_zgm0=fD6AjbLmsg91ctv7a6pW0fh8L9o38C1GmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bX0ebHI27BkGKh_lkh2ByItihQU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 04:01:23 -0000


> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:57 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
> Consider the case in which I am transfering a 60GB 4K movie over the net. Say for the sake of argument there is a 1% chance of a one bit failure.

There are a lot of statistical assumptions in that statement.

How about somebody showing an actual case where this has happened, please?

Before we solve a problem in theory rather than in practice.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email