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
circu
Yes I meant it in the sense Wishwas explained it. And I also meant it in the
sense of someone maliciously toggling bits. Let me say a word about the latter.
Assuming that layer 2 CRC will be kosher after the bits have been maliciously
toggled in the mutable fields of the front IPv6 header.
day, January 29, 2008 11:10 AM
> To: Rahim Choudhary; Fred Baker
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Checksum in IPv6 header
>
>
> Rahim,
>
> About the layer 2 and layer 4 checksums, from what I have
> been told and AFAICT the IPv6 Extension Headers are only
> covered
for the input.
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Rahim Choudhary wrote:
This may be a matter that is common knowledge to this list. But please
forgive me for asking. What were the reasons that the IPv6 working group
decided not to inc
This may be a matter that is common knowledge to this list. But please forgive
me for asking. What were the reasons that the IPv6 working group decided not to
include a checksum field for the IPv6 packet Header? Does it have no security
impact to omit the checksum?
--
