On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:54:55AM -0600, Robert Thurlow wrote: > Miles Nordin wrote: > > > sounds > > like they are not good enough though, because unless this broken > > router that Robert and Darren saw was doing NAT, yeah, it should not > > have touch the TCP/UDP checksum. > > I believe we proved that the problem bit flips were such > that the TCP checksum was the same, so the original checksum > still appeared correct.
The bit flips came in pairs, IIRC. I forget the details, but it's probably buried somewhere in my (and many others') e-mail. > > BTW which router was it, or you > > can't say because you're in the US? :) > > I can't remember; it was aging at the time. I can't remember either -- it was a few years ago. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
