ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Checksum at IP layer - is it even needed ?

2015-12-15 04:56:00
Lloyd

If that is a significant risk, then why did IPv6 not move
to a better protection when it was changing the other things
in the nw/xport interface? After all there were much
better c/s - such as Fletcher - that were well known
at the time?

Stewart


On 15/12/2015 00:32, lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk wrote:
> If the content is not understood by anyone except the intended endpoint
> the occasional misdelivery is surely of no consequence.

There's still a risk of port pollution (IPv4) or destination pollution (IPv6)
from misdeliveries without checksums.

not understood != not handled and pushed up the stack.

Lloyd Wood lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk 
http://about.me/lloydwood

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
*To:* Christopher Morrow <morrowc(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; Alexey Eromenko <al4321(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
*Cc:* ietf <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Jared Mauch 
<jared(_at_)puck(_dot_)nether(_dot_)net>
*Sent:* Tuesday, 15 December 2015, 10:04
*Subject:* Re: Checksum at IP layer - is it even needed ?

On 14/12/2015 21:55, Christopher Morrow wrote:



> I suppose: "Why are we trying to solve this in tcp/udp? why not solve
> this at the application layer with TLS?" .

Yes, I was wondering about this.

If the content is not understood by anyone except the intended endpoint
the occasional misdelivery is surely of no consequence.

Stewart






--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html