Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:22:40 -0300 From: Fernando Ariel Gont <fgont@softhome.net> To: justin@apple.com Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? Message-ID: <.19991229211419.009c8b10@pop.softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 18:13 28/12/1999 -0800, Justin C. Walker wrote: >Third, there's still a chance (cosmic rays, you know) that a packet >really might get munged after it is in host memory, but before the >stack layers have their look at it. This is possible, and has been >observed. It gets less likely over time. Ok, but... Was that taken as a *reason* for adding a CRC field? I mean, I can't understand that a CRC field was added because someone thought that the packets could get damaged in memory... If so, what about the OS code that is in memory???? >Forth, the protocol CRCs cover different portions of the packet. >For IP, it's *just* the IP header; for TCP, it's just the TCP >"packet" (plus the "pseudo header"). Ok, but.... why isn't there only one CRC field at the IP layer that covers the *whole* IP datagram? If it were like this, I think a CRC field at TCP or UDP would not be necessary... Best regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?.19991229211419.009c8b10>