Re: [Tsvwg] [SCTP checksum problems]

[Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com>]

Julian:

Your input would be invaluable.. please send us any comments
or input when you are ready.. I think we need to be
looking seriously at this in the early May time frame... so
any input you could give would be most welcome. We are limited
to a 32 bit checksum (the size of the common header CRC area).

But within that restriction any input you may have as to the
best for data integrety would be wonderful! 

Regards

R


"WENDT,JIM (HP-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> 
> Julian,
> The SCTP folks are right now discussing changing the SCTP checksum to be a
> CRC-32 (or other). This is a very good thing and really what needs to happen
> with SCTP for it to support iSCSI and other data-critical applications
> effectively (and also relieve iSCSI from having to implement data integrity
> checking and transport-like functionality over SCTP).
> 
> They are looking for inputs as to which CRC-32 or checksum to use. The iSCSI
> WG's CRC investigation work and conclusion would be a valuable input into
> their decision. The sooner that you can provide the iSCSI recommended CRC
> and reasoning behind it to them, the better, even before the forthcoming I-D
> is distributed.
> 
> Jim Wendt
> Networked Storage Architecture
> Hewlett-Packard Company
> jim_wendt@hp.com 916-785-5198
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: julian_satran@il.ibm.com [mailto:julian_satran@il.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:58 AM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: CRCs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > We will probably not be able to finish the CRC/checksum
> > document in time
> > for Nashua but we hope it will be out very soon after that.
> > However I
> > would like to inform you that while in Orlando and
> > Minneapolis we where
> > still talking about different CRCs we (Dafna Sheinwald, Pat
> > Thaler, Matt
> > Wakeley, Vince Cavanna and myself) have agreed on a CRC and
> > the forthcoming
> > ID will give all the reasons and why we recomend it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Julo
> >
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Stewart [mailto:rrs@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:31 AM
> To: Jonathan Wood
> Cc: xieqb@cig.mot.com; tsvwg@ietf.org; Jim Wendt; Jonathan Stone; Craig
> Partridge
> Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] [SCTP checksum problems]
> 
> Jonathan:
> 
> I will make sure everyone at the bakeoff is aware of the upcoming
> "checksum" change... Now one of the big questions yet is
> what checksum should we use?
> 
> I kinda lean towards crc-32 myself (but of course I have no technical
> basis for this and need to keep silent on which one to use anyway :->),
> but do we have other candidates besides fletcher-32 and possibly
> modified
> Adler-32 (i.e. 16 bit adds instead of 8)??
> 
> I will take the above 3 and do a bit of performance work this
> week and post some numbers... thats about all I can do i.e.  tell
> how much time the options I know of take...
> 
> If you have some other candidates let me know and I can possibly get
> some performance numbers on these as well...
> 
> As far as which is the best... I encourage all of you check-sum
> experts out there to please join the thread :)
> 
> Oh, I know Jonathan Stone's paper will NOT be ready until sometime
> in May.. so we may want to proceed slowly so that Craig Partridge and
> he can have some cycles to add to this dicussion :)
> 
> R
> 
> Jonathan Wood wrote:
> >
> > As an SCTP implementor and someone who will want to get the hardware folks
> to
> > help with checksumming, I wholeheartedly agree with Randy. Remember that
> SCTP is
> > just a proposed standard, and is as such not all that far along the
> > standardization process. We should still be able to make changes like this
> if
> > necessary.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > >
> > >Q:
> > >
> > >The only problem with an additional "CRC chunk" is that
> > >it makes hardware assistance to error correction much
> > >more difficult. It is better (I think) to just realize
> > >we made a mistake. Get the opinions of the experts as to
> > >what checksum to use... i.e.:
> > >
> > >- CRC-32
> > >- Modified Adler-32 (16 bit word sums)
> > >- Fletcher-32
> > >- ???
> > >
> > >And then go with this as a replacement... Admit we were wrong
> > >and fix the problem..
> > >
> > >This way you have ONE and only ONE checksum algorithm making
> > >hardware designers life much easier...
> > >
> > >R
> > >
> > >Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Another solution could be (I think I mentioned this to Randy and a few
> > >> others at last IETF):
> > >>
> > >> - Define a CRC-32 (or other strong checksum) control chunk and when the
> > >> sender wishes to use a stronger checksum protection, in addition to the
> > >> Adler-32 in the common SCTP header it includes this CRC-32 chuck in the
> > >> outbound packet. When the packet arrives, the receiver will do the
> > >> Adler-32 first, and then if the receiver supports the CRC-32 and sees
> > >> the presence of the CRC-32 chunk in the packet it will further verify
> > >> the CRC-32.
> > >>
> > >> We could also use a bit pattern in the chunk type of the CRC-32 chunk
> so
> > >> that if the receiver doesn't understand the CRC-32 chunk it would drop
> > >> it with a report back to the sender.
> > >>
> > >> -Qiaobing
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> tsvwg mailing list
> > >> tsvwg@ietf.org
> > >> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> > >--
> > >Randall R. Stewart
> > >Systems & Solutions Engineering
> > >Cisco Systems Inc.
> > >rrs@cisco.com 815-342-5222 or 815-477-2127
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >tsvwg mailing list
> > >tsvwg@ietf.org
> > >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> 
> --
> Randall R. Stewart
> Systems & Solutions Engineering
> Cisco Systems Inc.
> rrs@cisco.com 815-342-5222 or 815-477-2127
> 
> >

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
Systems & Solutions Engineering
Cisco Systems Inc.
rrs@cisco.com 815-342-5222 or 815-477-2127