Subject: Re: rdist vs. sup
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 03/03/1995 13:43:07
>> I'd like it if TCP could catch these...
> It can't.   Get over it!

Well, mostly.  Nothing is perfect...but even a 16-bit CRC would be a
lot better than the joke of a checksum that's in there at present.

> Seriously, though, on an ethernet you don't see this kind of
> corruption to an extent that matters,

Probably largely because Ethernet uses a real CRC already, at the
Ethernet level.

> Nonetheless, since a lot of us NetBSD hackers are in fact on the
> other end of slip or ppp connections, a 32-bit CRC in sup would be a
> big win.

I think a bigger win would be to junk any IP-over-serial code that
doesn't include decent checksumming!  CRC checks in sup would help
sup...but nothing else.  Perhaps _you_ don't care if other services
carry corrupted data, but _I_ sure do.  It's why my netlink does use
real checksums at a fairly low level.

					der Mouse