Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

I agree, and am happy to contribute what I have!!!!!

(which is: the results, but not the time)

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:14, 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
-- 
Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
University of Innsbruck

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm