skip to main content
10.1145/347059.347561acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

When the CRC and TCP checksum disagree

Published:28 August 2000Publication History

ABSTRACT

Traces of Internet packets from the past two years show that between 1 packet in 1,100 and 1 packet in 32,000 fails the TCP checksum, even on links where link-level CRCs should catch all but 1 in 4 billion errors. For certain situations, the rate of checksum failures can be even higher: in one hour-long test we observed a checksum failure of 1 packet in 400. We investigate why so many errors are observed, when link-level CRCs should catch nearly all of them.

We have collected nearly 500,000 packets which failed the TCP or UDP or IP checksum. This dataset shows the Internet has a wide variety of error sources which can not be detected by link-level checks. We describe analysis tools that have identified nearly 100 different error patterns. Categorizing packet errors, we can infer likely causes which explain roughly half the observed errors. The causes span the entire spectrum of a network stack, from memory errors to bugs in TCP.

After an analysis we conclude that the checksum will fail to detect errors for roughly 1 in 16 million to 10 billion packets. From our analysis of the cause of errors, we propose simple changes to several protocols which will decrease the rate of undetected error. Even so, the highly non-random distribution of errors strongly suggests some applications should employ application-level checksums or equivalents.

References

  1. 1.R. Blahut. Theory and Practice of Error Control Codes. Addison-Wesley, 1994.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.R. Braden, D. Borman, and C. Partridge. Computing the Internet Checksum. Intenet Request For Comments RFC 1071, ISI, September 1988. (Updated by RFCs 1141 and 1624).]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.C. Partridge. Gigabit Networking. Addison-Wesley, 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.V. Jacobson. Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links. Internet RFC 1144, Information Sciencies Institute, Feb 1990.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.J. Joseph L. Hammond and et. al. Development of a Transmission Error Model and an Error Control Model. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology, May 1975. Prepared for Rome Air Development Center.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.D. Katz. IP Router Alert Option. Internet RFC 2113, Information Sciences Institute, February 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.S. McCanne and V. Jacobson. The BSD Packet filter: a new architecture for user level packet capture. In Proc. USENIX '93 Winter Conference, pages 259-269, January 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.C. Partridge and A. Jackson. IPv6 Router Alert Option. Internet RFC 2711, Information Sciences Institute, October 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.V. Paxson. Social Forces and Traffic Behavior. End-to-End Research Group Meeting, Berkely, CA.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.V. Paxson. End-to-end internet packet dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Networking, 7(3):277-292, June 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.W. W. Plummer. TCP Checksum Function Design. Internet Engineering Note 45, BBN, 1978. Reprinted in {2}.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.J. Postel. Transmission Control Protocol. Internet Request for Comments RFC 793, ISI, September 1981. 3.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.A. Rijsinghani. Computation of the internet checksum via incremental update. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1624, Information Sciencies Institute, May 1994.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.J. Stone, M. Greenwald, J. Hughes, and C. Partridge. Performance of checksums and CRCs over real data. IEEE Trans. on Networks, October 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft. SEAL Detects Cell Misordering. IEEE Network Magazine, 6(4):8-19, July 1992.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. When the CRC and TCP checksum disagree

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                SIGCOMM '00: Proceedings of the conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication
                August 2000
                348 pages
                ISBN:1581132239
                DOI:10.1145/347059
                • cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
                  ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 30, Issue 4
                  October 2000
                  319 pages
                  ISSN:0146-4833
                  DOI:10.1145/347057
                  Issue’s Table of Contents

                Copyright © 2000 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 28 August 2000

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • Article

                Acceptance Rates

                SIGCOMM '00 Paper Acceptance Rate26of238submissions,11%Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader