Kris Pister wrote:
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.
In a previous email, you stated that you weren't arguing for a different
transport layer. But now it sounds like you want to change L4 to include
a 4 byte MIC. I guess I don't understand why you want to use UDP if you
want stronger message integrity checks at L4.
--
Jonathan Hui
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
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
