Touche'! It's an ugly internet out there. :)
I agree with their conclusion that "if the consequences of data
corruption are large [...] the application should add a stronger
application-level checksum."
So the truth is that I only trust networks that have 4 byte MICs at both
L2 and L4/5. Given that I know that I'm going to have that in any
networks that I build myself, 2 bytes of UDP checksum just doesn't seem
very attractive to me, and I'd like to be able to have the option to
elide them.
ksjp
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Dec 04 2007, at 09:21, Kris Pister wrote:
does option B scare you
It sure scares me.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=347059.347561
"This dataset shows the Internet has a wide variety of error sources
which can not be detected by link-level checks."
RFC 3819 therefore says:
Packet corruption may be, and is, also caused by bugs in host and
router hardware and software. Even if every subnetwork implemented
strong error detection, it is still essential that end-to-end
checksums are used at the receiving end host [SP2000].
Whether this class of observations is relevant to LoWPANs can be (and
needs to be) discussed.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
