[e2e] How TCP might look with always there ESP
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Wed Jul 18 00:50:38 PDT 2001
At 02:58 PM 7/17/01 -0400, Craig Partridge wrote:
>In message <NEBBJGDMMLHHCIKHGBEJAEKACJAA.dotis at sanlight.net>, "Douglas
> >For which cases would ESP digests appear weaker than a 16 bit TCP checksum?
>If they had the same number of bits, then we'd have to evaluate the two
>over particular error models to determine which is stronger.
While this is true for one particular measure of effectiveness (average
number of undetected erroneous packets from a distribution), I want to
register the following observation:
if the model of the "corrupting" process is not stochastic, this measure is
both meaningless and irrelevant.
1. deterministic corruption ( non probabilistic process explicitly
dependent on data or externalities like timing or congestion). In this
case the measure is meaningless.
2. adversarial (conscious entities that may choose attack based on
knowledge of the error detection method used). Measure irrelevant and
In other words there is no one measure for effectiveness of error detection
that is appropriate over all situations.
WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html
More information about the end2end-interest