Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!ucbvax!SEISMO.CSS.GOV!rick
From: rick@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: SLIP working group?
Message-ID: <8803300501.AA14341@beno.CSS.GOV>
Date: 30 Mar 88 05:01:55 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 20

Again, you haven't said that the actual line is bad enough that you
have to worry about it. You've said that you think you need
another checksum because some vendors stupidly doesn't use it.

Do you have actual data showing the CRC16 is needed? Is so (or if not),
why is a CRC16 strong enough and a "better checksum" not needed.
No "feelings" or "guesses" need apply.

Turning off the UDP checksums for performance reasons is VULGAR. It's
really an admission that your vendor's engineering is either
incapable or unwilling to fix the fundamental problem.
(Besides, if you are running NFS over a 9.6 kbps line, the
overhead of the UDP checksums is the least of your performance
concerns.)

Claiming that a low level protocol is broken because you are using
lobotomized higher lever protocols is no solution. Fix the problem!
Don't kludge around it!

---rick