Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

[Ethan Blanton <[e-mail]>]

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

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm