IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 31 January 2007 16:55 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIkY-0004jy-22; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:55:58 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIkW-0004hk-G9 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:55:56 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCIkT-0004Rv-2L for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:55:56 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([67.122.65.220]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0VGsJiY015014; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <45C0C9B8.8070109@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:54:16 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi
References: <1170256423.4805.611.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at> <45C0BCB7.8090301@isi.edu> <1170259675.4805.647.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at>
In-Reply-To: <1170259675.4805.647.camel@lap10-c703.uibk.ac.at>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1543586530=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Michael Welzl wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:58, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>> There was a separate issue - you need to *know* the header is intact.
>> For TCP, there's no separate header checksum to provide that
> 
> Well, that's what my proposal added  :)

Did your experiment measure that aspect? That's the key question - how
many packets have recoverable headers...

Joe

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


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email