Re: IPsec & Markers
Michael Krause <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rddp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I hate to bring this up but from a process perspective, did we not already achieve consensus that markers would always be required? We are getting towards last call so it would be good to avoid re-opening a topic if it has already reached consensus. Mike At 12:00 PM 10/8/2004, Michael C. Cambria wrote: >Culley, Paul wrote: > >>>>The Markers are to enable the receiving side to locate the start of MPA >>>>Frames even when TCP Segments are received out-of-order. >>> >>>Out of order or "unaligned"? When the entire FPDU fits in the TCP >>>segment (e.g. aligned), I have no problem locating the start of MPA >>>Frames, in (TCP sequence) order or not. >>Unfortunately, just because an FPDU might fit in a TCP segment, does not >>mean that it MUST always be aligned. It is legal (but unwise) for a >>sender to segment the TCP stream at other than FPDU boundaries. > >Agreed. In fact, this happens all the time with an MTU change (e.g. jumbo >to 1500). An unacked TCP segment that once fit in an entire FPDU now >needs to be retransmitted in many TCP segments. > >On the receive side, until I have the entire FPDU, so as to calculate the >CRC, regardless of what order these TCP segments arrive in I can't do much >with the data. > >In general, (to simplify) a receiver can take any given TCP segment, use >the "length" to find the CRC. If the CRC doesn't match, I don't have an FPDU. > >Regards, >MikeC > >-- >Michael C. Cambria > >email : [email protected] > VoIP : sip:[email protected] > FWD : sip:[email protected] > > >_______________________________________________ >rddp mailing list >[email protected] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp _______________________________________________ rddp mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp