[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: node types etc.
TCP checksums have a number of known problems.
Make sure you understand these problems before blindly choosing.
In short, if IP were being designed today, they wouldn't choose the
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Philipp Rumpf <email@example.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:57:13 +0000
> To: Nicolas Pitre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: David Woodhouse <email@example.com
> Subject: Re: node types etc.
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 02:35:37PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > While at it, what about replacing checksums with a CRC? Simple checksums
> > are proven to be bad at detecting sticky bits or such due to the high
> > correlation between bits of the same order... while a CRC offers way better
> > error checking.
> TCP checksums avoid that [the problems, not the error checking], reuse code,
> and are heavily optimized on most architectures. I'd vote for them.
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
> the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to email@example.com