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