-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 in the big scheme of things, a checksum is peanuts compared to the other things a router does. People have decided to not check it and cited this as an argument. In our experience tweaks like this makes almost no difference whatsoever, and are often an indicator of the quality of the rest of the thing you're buying.
On Feb 2, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Rahim Choudhary wrote: > >> Another point to note is this. In the case that a packet checksum/ >> hash is used, a corrupted packet gets dropped on its way, whereas >> without such a checksum/hash it is dropped at the destination. >> Thus additional network resources are consumed. All this is >> assuming that layer 2 CRC has been circumvented. > > Router CPU is also a network resource and would be consumed if > checksum was required - adding to overall latency, possibly > additional hardware costs... > > > Antonio Querubin > whois: AQ7- > ARIN------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHpP06bjEdbHIsm0MRArytAKCcGqp7TnacEV/IZ+kd0vt0mu9ERgCcD2jC wbN/4j6kL4ppNoKasi9EXCs= =Qkdb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
