[e2e] Open the floodgate

[Michael Welzl]

> > > Still, my question remains: why don't we have these 
> > separate checksums 
> > > as a TCP option? It strikes me as a rather simple method for links 
> > > where erroneous data are actually handed over, and I 
> > believe that it's 
> > > about time we transferred these things from the world of 
> > research into 
> > > the IETF.
> > 
> > When you have erroneous packets (for whatever reaso other 
> > than congestion), who will inform about that? Maybe the 
> > addresses themselves are erroneous. Besides, some packets 
> > just get completely junked ... Special headers will not solve 
> > the problem.
> 
> Another reason may be due to deployability issue, if you add checksum in
> TCP options, you have to modify both sending and receiving TCP stack. Is
> it? That is not easy to deploy in real network.

Not easy, but possible, in an incremental fashion.

This is not a reason to abandon it IMO. It wasn't a reason
to abandon ECN either.

Cheers,
Michael