Re: Re: Adler-32 Checksum

Michael Tuexen wrote:
> 32 bits are longer and therefore better, but the 16 bit algorithm is
> - already described in RFC 1071
> - supported on NICs in hardware.
> 
> Since it might be difficult to use a NIC to do the computation,
> because RSerPool normally will be implemented in userland,
> I would also vote for the 32 bit version and describe the
> algorithm explicitly in the ENRP ID.
> 
> If others agree I can put some text in the ID.

I agree with using 32-bit checksum.

--peter

> Best regards
> Michael
> 
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 15:59 Uhr, Thomas Dreibholz wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 28 June 2005 15:53, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> 
>>>>> I think, the Internet checksum algorithm (may be with keeping the
>>>>> full 32 bits
>>>>> instead of truncating to 16 bits) should already be sufficient for
>>>>> the audit
>>>>> purpose. Using this checksum algorithm, we also get order-
>>>>> invariancy and do
>>>>> not need to force a specific ordering of the handlespace within a
>>>>> management
>>>>> component. It is furthermore very simple and fast (only + and ~
>>>>> operations
>>>>> are needed, no *, / or %).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the Internet checksum is the way to go... I have no particular
>>>> preference
>>>> in 16 bit or 32 bit.
> 
> 
> I would prefer 32 bits. The checksum parameter pads the sum to 32
> bits  of
> space anyway - so why not use the full 32 bits, making the
> probability  that
> two states of the handlespace map to the same checksum value much 
> smaller?
> 
> 
> Best regards
> --
> =======================================================================
>  Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Dreibholz
> 
>  University of Essen,                            Room ES210
>  Inst. for Experimental Mathematics              Ellernstraße 29
>  Computer Networking Technology Group            D-45326 Essen/Germany
> - 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  E-Mail:     [email protected]
>  Homepage:   http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh
> =======================================================================
>>

> _______________________________________________
> rserpool mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool