Sorry for sending that message directly to you, Thiago — forgot to fix the address before hitting the "Send" button. :)
-------- Original Message -------- On terça-feira, 11 de setembro de 2012, às 16.33.44, you wrote: > There's a paper > (http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2000/conf/paper/sigcomm2000-9-1.pdf) > where estimations show that "between one (data) packet in 16 million > packets and one packets in 10 billion packets will have an undetected > checksum error". And th number of 10^10 packets doesn't look exceptionally > high considering modern amount of [global] network traffic. > > That's what makes me think that in cases where data integrity is critical > one shouldn't rely on TCP checksum alone and using additional > application-level validations is not a bad idea. True. That doesn't mean the TCP checksum is inappropriate for what it's supposed to do. The aggregate protection of Ethernet/ATM, IP and TCP's checksums and error correcting / retransmission measures will give you probably a protection against a BER of 1e-9. If your use-case requires better protection than that, you need to apply it on top.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
