Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at> Wed, 12 March 2008 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A3F28C7B7; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Q0en6QJuSt8; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D77728C7C9; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BC528C7FB for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oUQmqIc3wURH for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.uibk.ac.at (lmr1.uibk.ac.at [138.232.1.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D5528C7C5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [138.232.65.105] (pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at [138.232.65.105] michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.uibk.ac.at (8.13.8/8.13.8/F1) with ESMTP id m2CEtx8O008387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:55:59 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <45C0CE79.4040303@isi.edu>
References: <1170256423.4805.611.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <20070131164323.GD16985@elb.elitists.net> <45C0CE79.4040303@isi.edu>
Organization: University of Innsbruck
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:55:59 +0100
Message-Id: <1205333759.3719.109.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 at uibk.ac.at on 138.232.1.140
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,

[ Answering an email from January 2007 (my, my, how time flies  :-(  ),
and including ICCRG because I recently mentioned this study there,
so it might be of interest to them too ]

We finally did that:

Michael Welzl, Mattia Rossi, Andrea Fumagalli, Marco Tacca, "TCP/IP over
IEEE 802.11b WLAN: the Challenge of Harnessing Known-Corrupt Data",
accepted for publication, IEEE ICC 2008 (International Conference on
Communications), 19-23 May 2008, Beijing, China.

Available from
http://www.welzl.at/research/projects/corruption/index.html
(until somebody tells me that I misread the legal bits and
am not allowed to do so)

Cheers,
Michael



On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:14 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> Beyond what Ethan is suggesting, this is useful to write up more fully
> and publish, e.g., at Globecom or ICC. Negative results, as Ethan notes,
> are critical to the community as a whole.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Ethan Blanton wrote:
> > Michael Welzl spake unto us the following wisdom:
> >> I figured that the only convincing way to prove him
> >> wrong is to actually do a real-life test. I did, and
> >> proved him right  :)  that is, disabling checksums for
> >> parts of packets doesn't yield much of a benefit in
> >> WiFi networks, where it seems that frames are delivered
> >> in an all-or-nothing fashion.
> > 
> > I have to applaud this move.  All too often we only talk about the
> > things we did that *worked*, and the same questions about things that
> > any number of people would tell you doesn't work come up over and
> > over.  For this particular topic, there is now a citation, so the next
> > guy won't have to go try it himself.  Thank you.
> > 
> > Ethan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm