Subject:
|
Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:47:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
934 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin Baker <kevin.baker@racalitsec.com> wrote:
> With much respect, I would suggest that CRC8 is probably not sufficient,
> especially if we go for a broadcast (Ethernet) solution, where lots of
> collisions, and hence errors, will probably occur - with CRC8 you will
> probably miss about 1 in 256 errors, which sounds rather high.
You will miss about 1 in 256 errors that you do not catch earlier using
collision detection. I think your error rate per message will be much less
than 1 in 256 if you (can?) get the collision detection code right.
But we shouldn't argue the point. Somebody should just code it and try
it. Practice will show whether a CRC8 is sufficient or whether a CRC16
will be required.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | LNP - lets get coding.
|
| (...) Hi, Didn't mean to come across as arguing - sorry if I did! As you say, lets get coding LNP (My assumption is that the coding bit hasn't started yet, if it has, please accept my apologies & let me know how it is going!). I guess the things (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums)
|
| (...) With much respect, I would suggest that CRC8 is probably not sufficient, especially if we go for a broadcast (Ethernet) solution, where lots of collisions, and hence errors, will probably occur - with CRC8 you will probably miss about 1 in 256 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
