« Return to Thread: lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release
Re: lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release
by Zayaz Volk
::
Rate this Message:
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.
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.
> From: kieran@...
> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@...
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
« Return to Thread: lwip 1.4.1 bug-fix release
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
