On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Sharad Joshi wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Chetan Kumar S wrote:
> +
> + On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Sharad Joshi wrote:
> +
> + >
> + > 0. *WHY* the *minimum* ethernet frame size is 64 bytes. Any rational
> + > behind this? This means that *at-least* 46 bytes of data *must* be
> + > present in the ethernet frame. (Even if there is not much data, that
> +
> + How is that 46 bytes free, 14 (ether header) + 20 (IP) + 8 (UDP) = 42
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The data part does not include header and trailer. With these, the minimum
> ethernet frame size is 64 bytes (14 + 46 + 4)
Ofcourse this as I mentioned assuming TCP/UDP over IP, so if I pick up a
ethernet packet and if the size is not atleast ethernet header + IP header
it would be wast, as I can not process further, that is what I meant. And
this doesn't answer ur question ofcourse..
> + > are silent on this.
> +
> + This should be OK, pseudo header will take care that I will have proper
> + port numbers (also sequence numbers, ack numbers in tcp). This is more
> + serious in terms of TCP where a loss in seq number can get you no
> + where. And as you know UDP checksum is not mandatory.
>
> Well, AFAIK, checksum is used to preserve data integrity only. Is it used
> for anything else? If that is the case, what is that 'else'? And if this
> is not the case, then calculating checksum only over the respective
> headers, exclusive of pseudo header, shud suffice, no?
No, the rational nehind this would be if the UDP header is corrupt, where
will U pass the data, I mean which port, and what do I do with a DATA that
is fine, but delivered to wrong port/process..
This things got nothing to do with LINUX, so please take it off the
mailing list... may be if intrested continue on my personal mails..
-Chetan S
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Linux India Mailing List Archives are now available. Please search
the archive at http://lists.linux-india.org/ before posting your question
to avoid repetition and save bandwidth.
