Re: checksum updating

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 05 January 1995 01:30 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12160; 4 Jan 95 20:30 EST
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12156; 4 Jan 95 20:30 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15053; 4 Jan 95 20:30 EST
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA25642>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:12:02 -0800
Received: from [198.92.24.2] ([198.92.24.2]) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with SMTP id RAA22573; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:11:50 -0800
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:11:50 -0800
X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
Message-Id: <v0211010fab30843f3f65@[198.92.24.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: John Shriver <jas@shiva.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: checksum updating
Cc: rreq@isi.edu

At 11:37 PM 1/4/95, John Shriver wrote:
>The primary reason is that it reduces
>the chance that the router will accidentally corrupt the data

I could add a "discussion" note to the effect that incremental updating has
good arguments besides speed. Sufficient?