Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
John Shriver <jas@shiva.com> Fri, 15 September 1995 14:01 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13273; 15 Sep 95 10:01 EDT
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13269; 15 Sep 95 10:01 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11331; 15 Sep 95 10:01 EDT
Received: from shiva-dev.shiva.com (shiva.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA28495>; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 06:45:15 -0700
Received: (jas@localhost) by shiva-dev.shiva.com (8.6.9/8.6.4) id JAA21565; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:44:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:44:41 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John Shriver <jas@shiva.com>
Message-Id: <199509151344.JAA21565@shiva-dev.shiva.com>
To: craig@aland.bbn.com
Cc: rreq@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: <199509150025.RAA21506@aland.bbn.com> (message from Craig Partridge on Thu, 14 Sep 95 17:25:26 -0700)
Subject: Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
The MIT/Chiappa and Proteon code always took interpretation 1. You check the checksum, and then do an incremental update. (Eventually both were done in the same subroutine, and you backed out the update if you later could not forward the packet. Not totally clean, but a speed boost.) I'd say that interpretation 1 was always the intended one.
- RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Craig Partridge
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 John Shriver
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Noel Chiappa
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 William Chops Westfield
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
- Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 braden