Re: link level crap protection


Michael G. Petry (petry@trantor.umd.edu)
Thu, 31 Mar 88 08:45:21 EST


Let me second Mike's statement. I believe the link level check was only
to give a good/bad indication. There was no desire to do any kind of
link level correction or retransmission. The idea was that the limited
line bandwith was "THE" critical resource. If a system consist of multiple
low speed SLIP hops, you want the toss bad packets ASAP that might clog an
under-bandwidth pipe. If the model is stub only SLIP lines, it may not be
as critical. In a low speed SLIP model CPU should be relatively cheap and
thus the cost for doing the link level check considered tolerable.

I thought the idea was features such as checksum, CRC, compression, etc. were
negotiated on a link by link basis. If you have a link level that delivers an
error rate that is acceptable (ex. trailblazers), don't negotiate for a check.
If you have low tech noisy 2400 (like me) then I'll pay the extra cost.

Mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:41:32 GMT