Re: Corrupt packets

In message <357717E3-F3DF-4AD0-912E-000F1E6D009C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Alec H. 
Peterson" writes:
>However, I think the utility of the checksums can be seen beyond just  
>these sorts of 'odd' situations.  For example, Spread doesn't have  
>any protection against foreign packets (at least without the  
>checksums).  Granted the checksums are not perfect, but I think this  

If you want to protect against foreign packets, then checksums alone
don't provide for verifying identity  (as you said, they're not perfect).
If originating ip address and port number are too weak for one's
daemon-to-daemon identity verification requirements, then encryption
has to enter the mix to protect against spoofed packets.  Although this
would certainly be useful for some environments, I'd rather it be an
optional feature so as to not impact performance on private clusters
where all nodes trust one another.  Isn't Secure Spread the
security-enabled version of Spread?

daniel

-#-#-#-#-| Sleep and The Traveller |-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- http://www.savarese.org/
In distant lands, I hear the call of my home.     #     s a v a r e s e
Yet my work is not done.  My journey's just begun.-    software research
 -- http://www.sleepandthetraveller.com/          # http://www.savarese.com/