PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 April 2002 21:45
To: Michael Smith
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: TCP Checksum Interoperability
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
The last time this came up for a TCP implementation I used
I writing to this
list because the TCP workgroup was shutdown a while ago.
We have a
compatibility problem between two third party implementations of the TCP
checksum.
The problem concerns
the representation of zero, whichhas two 1-s complement representations
( and ).
We
The last time this came up for a TCP implementation I used to
maintain, our interpretation of Robustness Principle applied to this
problem dictated that we shouldn't send segments with checksum fields
set to all ones (that is, we shouldn't send ~(+0)), but that we had to
accept either ~(+0) or
Rob Austein wrote:
The last time this came up for a TCP implementation I used to
maintain, our interpretation of Robustness Principle applied to this
problem dictated that we shouldn't send segments with checksum fields
set to all ones (that is, we shouldn't send ~(+0)), but that we had to
Title: RE: TCP Checksum Interoperability
I'm cross-posting this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for archival purposes, we'll see if any further replies to the ietf list get posted at [EMAIL PROTECTED] too (for instructions to join tcp-impl, see below). My rationale here is just to try and keep
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
our interpretation of Robustness Principle applied to this problem
dictated that we .. had to accept either ~(+0) or ~(-0) in received
segments.
Strictly speaking, either zero state is completely legal,
as per RFC1624 section 3,
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 5 11:50:30 2002
* X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using -f
* Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:29:44 -0500
* From: Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: Re: TCP Checksum
and RFC791 claims ttl is in seconds, ergo I don't have to decrement
ttl because I know my traffic is on paths less than a second
long.
Cool reasoning.
You lose -- 791 says you have to subtract at least 1 from TTL even if.
However, I think that (A) most or all extant IPv4 routers violate
At 03:13 PM 4/5/2002, Matt Crawford wrote:
I think that (A) most or all extant IPv4 routers violate 791
if they happen hold a packet more than a second, and (B) IPv6
invalidated TCP's correctness by defining the Hop Limit field to be a
hop limit and have no connection to time. A TCP riding on
At Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:37:24 GMT, Bob Braden wrote:
We thought we had laid these issues to rest in 1988, in RFC 1071.
I think you came close. I disagree with one minor point in RFC 1071,
but code based on RFC 1071 would have the behavior that I think is
correct: it wouldn't generate TCP
10 matches
Mail list logo
