Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!visix!amanda
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SLIP documents
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.215141.25456@visix.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 21:51:41 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.172144.12605@nmt.edu> <4320@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <5827@auspex.auspex.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 18

In article <5827@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>Well, I might not go *that* far.  Ethernet has a checksum, and SLIP
>doesn't, so if you're, say, using UDP without checksums, Ethernet may be
>more reliable than SLIP....

On the other hand, if you're running NFS (the only common use I know of
for UDP without checksums) over SLIP, you may have worse problems :).

Of course, I'm firmly in the end-to-end-reliability-check camp, and thus
I think that running UDP without checksums is just a way of asking for
trouble.  I still fail to understand why it was done in NFS.  Sigh.

-- 
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
If you know what you're doing, how long it will take, or how much it will
cost, it isn't research.