WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
I would expect it so. That's one of the purposes of UDP checksum, i guess.
On other hand, if UDP checksum is omitted and under certain conditions (long UDP datagram timeout, high communcation speed and as a result IP overlapping while still within a UDP datagram timeout) - one might expect to get a wrong, but "valid" datagram with IP fragment belonging to another UDP datagram. - I think, it might happen with IPv4.
> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:02:04 +0000 > To: lwip-users@... > Subject: Re: [lwip-users] lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release > > > On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:31, Bill Auerbach wrote: > > >> That maximum size of a UDP datagram should only be limited by the > >> protocol and your resources, so 64K should work, yes. > > > > With UDP being unreliable, that implies that one or more fragments could be > > dropped in a large UDP send, right? > > Yes, but if one fragment is lost then the whole datagram should be discarded by the receiving stack. > > Kieran > _______________________________________________ > lwip-users mailing list > lwip-users@... > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users