On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:39:40 -1000 (HST) Antonio Querubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Rahim Choudhary wrote: > > > 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 circumvented. > > Router CPU is also a network resource and would be consumed if checksum > was required - adding to overall latency, possibly additional hardware > costs... > And route aggregation is probably more of a cause of packet non-delivery than checksums failing. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
