Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ETN-WLV.EATON.COM!mcc
From: mcc@ETN-WLV.EATON.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Checksums, CRC's, and NFS
Message-ID: <8804041338.AA12433@etn-wlv.EATON.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 88 13:38:24 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 13

I seem to recall an article several years ago where cyclical reduncancy check
(CRC), longitudinal redundancy check (LRC), and vertical redundancy check (VRC)
were discussed.  The thrust of the article was that they are, indeed, useful
in detecting transmission errors; however, the difference in the ability of
the CRC algorithm and the LRC algorithm to detect transmission errors was not
that great.  The error detection rates were something like 98% and 94%,
respectively.

A gut feel is that a VRC/LRC combination for error detection is just as reliable
as a CRC for detection of errors *and* saves 5 instructions per byte assuming
the use of a CRC table.  

Merton Campbell Crockett
mcc@etn-wlv.eaton.com