On 10/5/10 12:32 PM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
[TomP] I am very against doing the checksum calculation twice, once for
UDP and then again for DCCP. In my opinion, implementations should know
which encapsulation is being used.
I hope I'm missing something, but ...
I'm *very* against usage-context se
Hi,
On 2010-10-8, at 11:19, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> Besides, my (admittedly old) copy of Stevens indicates that UDP
> checksums are optional.
they are optional for IPv4 but (currently) mandatory for IPv6. (Just a data
point.)
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Andrew,
a few points:
- turning off the UDP checksum (which also acts as a necessary demultiplexing
at-the-right-endpoint check) has repeatedly proven to be a very bad idea.
Subtle NFS corruption etc. See the end-to-end papers. Saying 'well, the higher
layers will obviously check their work in
See comments in line...
On 08/10/2010 09:54, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Andrew,
a few points:
- turning off the UDP checksum (which also acts as a necessary demultiplexing
> at-the-right-endpoint check) has repeatedly proven to be a very bad
idea.
> Subtle NFS corruption etc. See the end-to-
Hi Andrew,
See inline...
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Lentvorski [mailto:bs...@allcaps.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:19 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Gerrit Renker; dccp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dccp] [udp-encap rev2] discussion/comments
>
> On 10/5/10 12:32 PM, Phe
Hi Lloyd,
I'm pretty much in line with what you say here. See inline for
details...
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:l.w...@surrey.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:55 AM
> To: bs...@allcaps.org
> Cc: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; Phelan, Tom; ger...@erg.ab
Hi Gorry,
I think you've hit the points well below. Adding and explicit "UDP
checksum of zero is invalid" to the next revision should help things.
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Gorry Fairhurst
> Sent: Friday, Octo
Hi Pasi,
See inline...
Tom P.
> -Original Message-
> From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: Gerrit Renker; dccp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dccp] [udp-encap rev2] discussion/comments
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm picking a
On 10/8/10 1:54 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Andrew,
a few points:
- turning off the UDP checksum (which also acts as a necessary demultiplexing
at-the-right-endpoint check) has repeatedly proven to be a very bad idea.
Subtle NFS corruption etc. See the end-to-end papers. Saying 'well, the
On 10/8/10 7:25 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
[TomP] There have been several good comments on this already, but one
thing I'd like to add is, how can this work? The problem is that the
DCCP checksum includes the IP addresses, which have potentially been
changed along the way.
Ah, the DCCP checksum i
10 matches
Mail list logo
