RE: Re: Adler-32 Checksum
Johnson Walter-CWJ002 <[email protected]> Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:56:02 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6F8DFFA2C996D711945800065BFC9E4A16048315@il02exm11> |
Is there any property that makes the Internet Checksum better at detecting a handlespace inconsistency as compared to a simple XOR of the byte block data which is composed of the pool handle zero padded to a 32 bit work boundary and the 32 bit PE Id? Wondering since the Internet checksum will be more computationally expensive. Thanks Walter -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Lei Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:29 PM To: Michael Tuexen Cc: Xie Qiaobing-QXIE1; Thomas Dreibholz; [email protected]; [email protected]; Silverton Aron-C1710C Subject: Re: [Rserpool] 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 > =======================================================================