Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

IMHO...
communication systems are of much higher quality today (fiber optics, etc.),
checksum errors are less of a concern, thus allowing more stuff to be
bundled into a packet as in the case of chunk bundling (bigger packets =
fewer headers and increased utilization)

SS7 is an example of a protocol built to be reliable in a noisy environment.
In a noise-reduced environment like is the case in many locations today, the
safety of SS7 is the unneeded overhead.

Furthermore, chunk bundling can be suppressed, can it not? (I'll have to
re-read 2960 on that one-Section 1.3.5 says it can be suppressed, but
suppression can be ignored in times of congestion.

Best regards,
Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luca Papotti"
<Luca.Papotti AT italtel.it>
To:
<discussion AT sctp.de>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: [SCTP-Discussion] About the SCTP checksum


> Hi all,
> I have a question about the SCTP checksum.
> The RFC defines a single checksum covering the entire packet.
> This could lead to inefficient behaviour in the case of data
> corruption, 'cause an error in a single DATA CHUNK results in the
retransmission
> of all other DATA CHUNKS eventually boundled in the same packet.
> This, combined whit the need to re-compute the Adler-32 checksum 4 the
entire
> packet,
> is an overhead, I think.
> Do You know the reason of this choice, or what I missunderstand ??
> Thank's.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> discussion AT sctp.de
> http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion

---

• [SCTP-Discussion] Re: Return value for sctp_registerInstance, Andreas Jungmaier, 07/04/2001
  • [SCTP-Discussion] About the SCTP checksum, Luca Papotti, 07/09/2001
    • Re: [SCTP-Discussion] About the SCTP checksum, M. Mueller, 07/09/2001

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.