Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

Michael Welzl wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> A long time ago, at the San Diego IETF meeting in August 2004,
> I presented an idea called "Corruption Notification Options"
> (a proposal which is some sort of a refined specification of
> the TCP HACK idea) to this group.
> 
> The group's feedback was that this is useless, as errors
> occur in such a clustered fashion that you wouldn't see
> any packets with an intact header but erroneous payload
> (which is the only situation where the scheme would
> yield any benefit). I think that it was Gorry Fairhurst
> who said this.

There was a separate issue - you need to *know* the header is intact.
For TCP, there's no separate header checksum to provide that
information. I.e., this might be possible with UDP-lite, but isn't with
UDP or TCP. This might not affect the SCTP or DCCP variants, depending
on what their checksums cover.

Joe

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

Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

Attachment: signature.asc