Stupid checksum and next LSA begining question
Erblichs <erblichs@EARTHLINK.NET> Thu, 18 September 2003 00:13 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07288 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <20.00BA2D50@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:19 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 55238138 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:17 -0400
Received: from 207.217.120.120 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:17 -0400
Received: from user-2ivfmo8.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.219.8] helo=earthlink.net) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19zmQ8-0007ZN-00 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:13:17 -0700
X-Sender: "Erblichs" <@smtp.earthlink.net> (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20030917142416.98604.qmail@web20705.mail.yahoo.com> <3F6872B3.5020108@redback.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3F68F69D.399329FD@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:45 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Erblichs <erblichs@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Stupid checksum and next LSA begining question
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group,
When given a "update packet with say 5 LSAs", and the
1st LSA in this packet has a checksum error, should
the rest of the LSAs in the update be attempted to be
processed?
Note: If we have a checksum error, this means that the
length and the start of the next LSA COULD be wrong.
We could assume that checking the type of the next LSA
could be within a valid LSA type range, and still not
have the correct begining of the 2nd or 3rd ... LSAs.
Is this behaviour specified anywhere?
Mitchell Erblich
Sr Software Engineer
--------------------
- ospfv3 MIB - ospfv3NbrTable vj cadman
- Re: ospfv3 MIB - ospfv3NbrTable Acee Lindem
- draft-ietf-ospf-cap-00.txt : Inconsistency Questi… Erblichs
- Re: draft-ietf-ospf-cap-00.txt : Inconsistency Qu… Acee Lindem
- Stupid checksum and next LSA begining question Erblichs