I would expect it so. That's one of the purposes of UDP checksum, i guess.
On other hand, if UDP checksum is omitted and under certain conditions (long UDP datagram timeout, high communcation speed and as a result IP overlapping while still within a UDP datagram timeout) - one might expect to get a wrong, but "valid" datagram with IP fragment belonging to another UDP datagram. - I think, it might happen with IPv4. > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:02:04 +0000 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release > > > On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:31, Bill Auerbach wrote: > > >> That maximum size of a UDP datagram should only be limited by the > >> protocol and your resources, so 64K should work, yes. > > > > With UDP being unreliable, that implies that one or more fragments could be > > dropped in a large UDP send, right? > > Yes, but if one fragment is lost then the whole datagram should be discarded > by the receiving stack. > > Kieran > _______________________________________________ > lwip-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
