[e2e] purpose of pseudo header in TCP checksum
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Tue Feb 15 08:11:38 PST 2005
Noel - you are correct, and I agree that it is better. If we were to
view the IP namespace as merely a routing "hint" and put the actual end
point address in the TCP layer, end-to-end that would indeed solve the
I also agree that IPv6 continues to perpetuate this confusion of "shared
fields" between the end-to-end protocol and the IP layer.
Your approach is cleaner, and I wish we had had the guts to push that
through in the 1976 process - despite the bias toward character echoing
that pervaded a large, pragmatically motivated part of the design
community at the time. (and who knows, had we done it "right" we might
have never had enough adoption for the correct design to survive).
I stand by my hyperbolic statement about "terrorists" - you may
recall that the original sales of NAT boxes claimed that NAT was an
Internet "Standard" when it was merely part of a set of alternatives
being considered for a next generation solution to the address space
shortage. Those who deceived the world by marketing this non-standard
as if it were an accepted IETF standard were indeed creating havoc that
has compromised the network irrevocably. IMHO, of course. :-) I
wrote about it at the time... as did Larry Lessig.
More information about the end2end-interest