Re: Checksum in IPv6 header

[Mark Smith <ipng at 69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:39:40 -1000 (HST)
Antonio Querubin <tony at lava.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Rahim Choudhary wrote:
> 
> > Another point to note is this. In the case that a packet checksum/hash 
> > is used, a corrupted packet gets dropped on its way, whereas without 
> > such a checksum/hash it is dropped at the destination. Thus additional 
> > network resources are consumed. All this is assuming that layer 2 CRC 
> > has been circumvented.
> 
> Router CPU is also a network resource and would be consumed if checksum 
> was required - adding to overall latency, possibly additional hardware 
> costs...
> 

And route aggregation is probably more of a cause of packet
non-delivery than checksums failing.

Regards,
Mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------