Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

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

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

Attachment: signature.asc