RFC index | STD index | BCP index | FYI index

Plain text | gzipped plain text | A4 postscript | A4 postscript, 2 up | A4 postscript, 4 up

```
Network Working Group D. Sheinwald
Request for Comments: 3385 J. Satran
Category: Informational IBM
P. Thaler
V. Cavanna
Agilent
September 2002
Internet Protocol Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI)
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)/Checksum Considerations
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
In this memo, we attempt to give some estimates for the probability
of undetected errors to facilitate the selection of an error
detection code for the Internet Protocol Small Computer System
Interface (iSCSI).
We will also attempt to compare Cyclic Redundancy Checks (CRCs) with
other checksum forms (e.g., Fletcher, Adler, weighted checksums), as
permitted by available data.
```## 1. Introduction

Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) codes [Peterson] are shortened cyclic
codes used for error detection. A number of CRC codes have been
adopted in standards: ATM, IEC, IEEE, CCITT, IBM-SDLC, and more
[Baicheva]. The most important expectation from this kind of code is
a very low probability for undetected errors. The probability of
undetected errors in such codes has been, and still is, subject to
extensive studies that have included both analytical models and
simulations. Those codes have been used extensively in
communications and magnetic recording as they demonstrate good "burst
error" detection capabilities, but are also good at detecting several
independent bit errors. Hardware implementations are very simple and
well known; their simplicity has made them popular with hardware
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
developers for many years. However, algorithms and software for
effective implementations of CRC are now also widely available
[Williams].
The probability of undetected errors depends on the polynomial
selected to generate the code, the error distribution (error model),
and the data length.
## 2. Error Models and Goals

We will analyze the code behavior under two conditions:
- noisy channel - burst errors with an average length of n bits
- low noise channel - independent single bit errors
Burst errors are the prevalent natural phenomenon on communication
lines and recording media. The numbers quoted for them revolve
around the BER (bit error rate). However, those numbers are
frequently nothing more than a reflection of the Burst Error Rate
multiplied by the average burst length. In field engineering tests,
three numbers are usually quoted together -- BER, error-free-seconds
and severely-error-seconds; this illustrates our point.
Even beyond communication and recording media, the effects of errors
will be bursty. An example of this is a memory error that will
affect more than a single bit and the total effect will not be very
different from the communication error, or software errors that occur
while manipulating packets will have a burst effect. Software errors
also result in burst errors. In addition, serial internal
interconnects will make this type of error the most common within
machines as well.
We also analyze the effects of single independent bit errors, since
these may be caused by certain defects.
On burst, we assume an average burst error duration of bd, which at a
given transmission rate s, will result in an average burst of a =
bd*s bits. (E.g., an average burst duration of 3 ns at 1Gbs gives an
average burst of 3 bits.)
For the burst error rate, we will take 10^-10. The numbers quoted
for BER on wired communication channels are between 10^-10 to 10^-12
and we consider the BER as burst-error-rate*average-burst-length.
Nevertheless, please keep in mind that if the channel includes
wireless links, the error rates may be substantially higher.
For independent single bit errors, we assume a 10^-11 error rate.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 2]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
Because the error detection mechanisms will have to transport large
amounts of data (petabytes=10^16 bits) without errors, we will target
very low probabilities for undetected errors for all block lengths
(at 10Gb/s that much data can be sent in less than 2 weeks on a
single link).
Alternatively, as iSCSI has to perform efficiently, we will require
that the error detection capability of a selected protection
mechanism be very good, at least up to block lengths of 8k bytes
(64kbits).
The error detection capability should keep the probability of
undetected errors at values that would be "next-to-impossible". We
recognize, however, that such attributes are hard to quantify and we
resorted to physics. The value 10^23 is the Avogadro number while
10^45 is the number of atoms in the known Universe (or it was many
years ago when we read about it) and those are the bounds of
incertitude we could live with. (10^-23 at worst and 10^-45 if we
can afford it.) For 8k blocks, the per/bit equivalent would be
(10^-28 to 10^-50).
## 3. Background and Literature Survey

Each codeword of a binary (n,k) CRC code C consists of n = k+r bits.
The block of r parity bits is computed from the block of k
information bits. The code has a degree r generator polynomial g(x).
The code is linear in the sense that the bitwise addition of any two
codewords yields a codeword.
For the minimal m such that g(x) divides (x^m)-1, either n=m, and the
code C comprises the set D of all the multiplications of g(x) modulo
(x^m)-1, or n<m, and C is obtained from D by shortening each word in
the latter in m-n specific positions. (This also reduces the number
of words since all zero words are then discarded and duplicates are
not maintained.)
Error detection at the receiving end is made by computing the parity
bits from the received information block, and comparing them with the
received parity bits.
An undetected error occurs when the received word c' is a codeword,
but is different from the c that is transmitted.
This is only possible when the error pattern e=c'-c is a codeword by
itself (because of the linearity of the code). The performance of a
CRC code is measured by the probability Pud of undetected channel
errors.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 3]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
Let Ai denote the number of codewords of weight i, (i.e., with i 1-
bits). For a binary symmetric channel (BSC), with sporadic,
independent bit error ratio of probability 0<=epsilon<=0.5, the
probability of undetected errors for the code C is thus given by:
Pud(C,epsilon) = Sigma[for i=d to n] (Ai*(epsilon^i)*(1-epsilon)^(n-i))
where d is the distance of the code: the minimal weight difference
between two codewords in C which, by the linearity of the code, is
also the minimal weight of any codeword in the code. Pud can also be
expressed by the weight distribution of the dual code: the set of
words each of which is orthogonal (bitwise AND yields an even number
of 1-bits) to every word of C. The fact that Pud can be computed
using the dual code is extremely important; while the number of
codewords in the code is 2^k, the number of codewords in the dual
code is 2^r. k is in the orders of thousands, and r in the order of
16 or 24 or 32. If we use Bi to denote the number of codewords in
the dual code which are of weight i, then ([LinCostello]):
Pud (C,epsilon) = 2^-r Sigma [for i=0 to n] Bi*(1-2*epsilon)^i -
(1-epsilon)^n
Wolf [Wolf94o] introduced an efficient algorithm for enumerating all
the codewords of a code and finding their weight distribution.
Wolf [Wolf82] found that, counter to what was assumed, (1) there
exist codes for which Pud(C,epsilon)>Pud(C,0.5) for some epsilon
not=0.5 and (2) Pud is not always increasing for 0<=epsilon<=0.5.
The value of what was assumed to be the worst Pud is Pud(C,0.5)=(2^-
r) - (2^-n). This stems from the fact that with epsilon=0.5, all 2^n
received words are equally likely and out of them 2^(n-r)-1 will be
accepted as codewords of no errors, although they are different from
the codeword transmitted. Previously Pud had been assumed to equal
[2^(n-r)-1]/(2^n-1) or the ratio of the number of non-zero multiples
of the polynomial of degree less than n (each such multiple is
undetected) and the number of possible error polynomials. With
either formula Pud approaches 1/2^r as n approaches infinity, but
Wolf's formula is more accurate.
Wolf [Wolf94j] investigated the CCITT code of r=16 parity bits. This
code is a member of the family of (shortened codes of) BCH codes of
length 2^(r-1) -1 (r=16 in the CCITT 16-bit case) generated by a
polynomial of the form g(x) =(x+1)p(x) with p(x) being a primitive
polynomial of degree r-1 (=15 in this case). These codes have a BCH
design distance of 4. That is, the minimal distance between any two
codewords in the code is at least 4 bits (which is earned by the fact
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 4]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
that the sequence of powers of alpha, the root of p(x), which are
roots of g(x), includes three consecutive powers -- alpha^0, alpha^1,
alpha^2). Hence, every 3 single bit errors are detectable.
Wolf found that different shortened versions of a given code, of the
same codeword length, perform the same (independent of which specific
indexes are omitted from the original code). He also found that for
the unshortened codes, all primitive polynomials yield codes of the
same performance. But for the shortened versions, the choice of the
primitive polynomial does make a difference. Wolf [Wolf94j] found a
primitive polynomial which (when multiplied by x+1) yields a
generating polynomial that outperforms the CCITT one by an order of
magnitude. For 32-bit redundancy bits, he found an example of two
polynomials that differ in their probability of undetected burst of
length 33 by 4 orders of magnitude.
It so happens, that for some shortened codes, the minimum distance,
or the distribution of the weights, is better than for others derived
from different unshortened codes.
Baicheva, et. al. [Baicheva] made a comprehensive comparison of
different generating polynomials of degree 16 of the form g(x) =
(x+1)p(x), and of other forms. They computed their Pud for code
lengths up to 1024 bits. They measured their "goodness" -- if
Pud(C,epsilon) <= Pud(C,0.5) and being "well-behaved" -- if
Pud(C,epsilon) increases with epsilon in the range (0,0.5). The
paper gives a comprehensive table that lists which of the polynomials
is good and which is well-behaved for different length ranges.
For a single burst error, Wolf [Wolf94J] suggested the model of (b:p)
burst -- the errors only occur within a span of b bits, and within
that span, the errors occur randomly, with a bit error probability 0
<= p <= 1.
For p=0.5, which used to be considered the worst case, it is well
known [Wolf94J] that the probability of undetected one burst error of
length b <= r is 0, of length b=r+1 is 2^-(r-1), and of b > r+1, is
2^-r, independently of the choice of the primitive polynomial.
With Wolf's definition, where p can be different from 0.5, indeed it
was found that for a given b there are values of p, different from
0.5 which maximize the probability of undetected (b:p) burst error.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 5]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
Wolf proved that for a given code, for all b in the range r < b < n,
the conditional probability of undetected error for the (n, n-r)
code, given that a (b:p) burst occurred, is equal to the probability
of undetected errors for the same code (the same generating
polynomial), shortened to block length b, when this shortened code is
used with a binary symmetric channel with channel (sporadic,
independent) bit error probability p.
For the IEEE-802.3 used CRC32, Fujiwara et al. [Fujiwara89] measured
the weights of all words of all shortened versions of the IEEE 802.3
code of 32 check bits. This code is generated by a primitive
polynomial of degree 32:
g(x) = x^32 + x^26 + x^23 + x^22 + x^16 + x^12 + x^11 + x^10 + x^8 +
x^7 + x^5 + x^4 + x^2 + x + 1 and hence the designed distance of it
is only 3. This distance holds for codes as long as 2^32-1.
However, the frame format of the MAC (Media Access Control) of the
data link layer in IEEE 802.3, as well as that of the data link layer
for the Ethernet (1980) forbid lengths exceeding 12,144 bits. Thus,
only such bounded lengths are investigated in [Fujiwara89]. For
shortened versions, the minimum distance was found to be 4 for
lengths 4096 to 12,144; 5 for lengths 512 to 2048; and even 15 for
lengths 33 through 42. A chart of results of calculations of Pud is
presented in [Fujiwara89] from which we can see that for codes of
length 12,144 and BSC of epsilon = 10^-5 - 10^-4,
Pud(12,144,epsilon)= 10^-14 - 10^-13 and for epsilon = 10^-4 - 10^-3,
Pud(512,epsilon) = 10^-15, Pud(1024,epsilon) = 10^-14,
Pud(2048,epsilon) = 10^-13, Pud(4096,epsilon) = 10^-12 - 10^-11, and
Pud(8192,epsilon) = 10^-10 which is rather close to 2^-32.
Castagnoli, et. al. [Castagnoli93] extended Fujiwara's technique for
efficiently calculating the minimum distance through the weight
distribution of the dual code and explored a large number of CRC
codes with 24 and 32 redundancy bit. They explored several codes
built as a multiplication of several lower degree irreducible
polynomials.
In the popular class of (x+1)*deg31-irreducible-polynomial they
explored 47000 polynomials (not all the possible ones). The best
they found has d=6 up to block lengths of 5275 and d=4 up to 2^31-1
(bits).
The investigation was done in 1993 with a special purpose processor.
By comparison, the IEEE-802 code has d=4 up to at least 64,000 bits
(Fujikura stopped looking at 12,144) and d=3 up to 2^32-1 bits.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 6]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
CRC32/4 (we will refer to it as CRC32C for the remainder of this
memo) is 11EDC6F41; IEEE-802 CRC is 104C11DB7, denoting the
coefficients as a bit vector.
[Stone98] evaluated the performance of CRC (the AAL5 CRC that is the
same as IEEE802) and the TCP and Fletcher checksums on large amounts
of data. The results of this experiment indicate a serious weakness
of the checksums on real-data that stems from the fact that checksums
do not spread the "hot spots" in input data. However, the results
show that Fletcher behaves by a factor of 2 better than the regular
TCP checksum.
## 4. Probability of Undetected Errors - Burst Error

## 4.1 CRC32C (Derivations from [Wolf94j])

Wolf [Wolf94j] found a 32-bit polynomial of the form g(x) = (1+x)p(x)
for which the conditional probability of undetected error, given that
a burst of length 33 occurred, is at most (i.e., maximized over all
possible channel bit error probabilities within the burst) 4 * 10^-
10.
We will now figure the probability of undetected error, given that a
burst of length 34 occurred, using the result derived in this paper,
namely that for a given code, for all b in the range 32 < b < n, the
conditional probability of undetected error for the (n, n-32) code,
given that a (b:p) burst occurred, is equal to the probability of
undetected errors for the same code (the same generating polynomial),
shortened to block length b, when this shortened code is used with a
binary symmetric channel with channel (sporadic, independent) bit
error probability p.
The approximation formula for Pud of sporadic errors, if the weights
Ai are distributed binomially, is:
Pud(C, epsilon) =~= Sigma[for i=d to n] ((n choose i) / 2^r )*(1-
epsilon)^(n-i) * epsilon^i .
Assuming a very small epsilon, this expression is dominated by i=d.
From [Fujiwara89] we know that for 32-bit CRC, for such small n,
d=15. Thus, when n grows from 33 to 34, we find that the
approximation of Pud grows by (34 choose 15) / (33 choose 15) =
34/19; when n grows further to 35, Pud grows by another 35/20.
Taking, from Wolf [Wolf94j], the most generous conditional
probability, computed with the bit error probability p* that
maximizes Pub(p|b), we derive: Pud(p*|33) = 4 x 10^{-10}, yielding
Pud(p*|34) = 7.15 x 10^{-10} and Pud(p*|35) = 1.25 x 10^{-9}.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 7]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
For the density function of the burst length, we assume the Rayleigh
density function (the discretization thereof to integers), which is
the density of the absolute values of complex numbers of Gauss
distribution:
f(x) = x / a^2 exp {-x^2 / 2a^2 } , x>0 .
This density function has a peak at the parameter a and it decreases
smoothly as x increases.
We take three consecutive bits as the most common burst event once an
error does occur, and thus a=3.
Now, the probability that a burst of length b occurs in a specific
position is the burst error rate, which we estimate as 10^{-10},
times f(b). Calculating for b=33 we find f(33) = 1.94 x 10^{-26}.
Together, we found that the probability that a burst of length 33
occurred, starting at a specific position, is 1.94 x 10^{-36}.
Multiplying this by the generous upper bound on the probability that
this burst error is not detected, Pud(p*|33), we get that the
probability that a burst occurred at a specific position, and is not
detected, is 7.79 x 10 ^{-46}.
Going again along this path of calculations, this time for b=34 we
find that f(34) = 4.85*10^{-28}. Multiplying by 10^{-10} and by
Pud(p*|34) = 7.15*10^{-10} we find that the probability that a burst
of length 34 occurred at a specific position, and is not detected, is
3.46*10^{-47}.
Last, computing for b=35, we get 1*10^{-29} * 10^{-10} * 1.25*10^{-9}
= 1.25*10^{-48}.
It looks like the total can be approximated at 10^-45 which is within
the bounds of what we are looking for.
When we multiply this by the length of the code (because thus far we
calculated for a specific position) we have 10^-45 * 6.5*10^4 =
6.5*10^-41 as an upper bound on the probability of undetected burst
error for a code of length 8K Bytes.
We can also apply this overestimation for IEEE 802.3.
Comment: 2^{-32} = 2.33*10^{-10}.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 8]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
## 5. Probability of Undetected Errors - Independent Errors

## 5.1 CRC (Derivations from [Castagnoli93])

It is reported in [Castagnoli93] that for BER = epsilon=10^-6, Pud
for a single bit error, for a code of length 8KB, for both cases,
IEEE-802.3 and CRC32C is 10^{-20}. They also report that CRC32C has
distance 4, and IEEE either 3 or 4 for this code length. From this,
and the minimum distance of the code of this length, we conclude that
with our estimation of epsilon, namely 10^{-11}, we should multiply
the reported result by {10^{-5}}^4 = 10^{-20} for CRC32C, and either
10^{-15} or 10^{-20} for IEEE802.3.
## 5.2 Checksums

For independent bit errors, Pud of CRC is approximately 12,000 better
than Fletcher, and 22,000 better than Adler. For burst errors, by
the simple examples that exist for three consecutive values that can
produce an undetected burst, we take the factor to be at least the
same.
If in three consecutive bytes, the error values are x, -2x, x then
the error is undetected. Even for this error pattern alone, the
conditional probability of undetected error, assuming a uniform
distribution of data, is 2^-16 = 1.5 * 10^-5. The probability that a
burst of length 3 bytes occurs, is f(24) = 3*10^-14. Together:
4.5*10^-19. Multiplying this by the length of the code, we get close
to 4.5*10^-16, way worse than the vicinity of 10^-40.
The numbers in the table in Section 7 below reflect a more "tolerant"
difference (10*4).
## 6. Incremental CRC Updates

In some protocols the packet header changes frequently. If the CRC
includes the changing part, the CRC will have to be recomputed. This
raises two issues:
- the complete computation is expensive
- the packet is not protected against unwanted changes
between the last check and the recomputation
Fortunately, changes in the header do not imply a need for completed
CRC computation. The reason is the linearity of the CRC function.
Namely, with I1 and I2 denoting two equal-length blocks of
information bits, CRC(I) denoting the CRC check bits calculated for
I, and + denoting bitwise modulo-2 addition, we have CRC(I1+I2) =
CRC(I1)+CRC(I2).
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 9]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
Hence, for an IP packet, made of a header h followed by data d
followed by CRC bits c = CRC(h d), arriving at a node, which updates
header h to become h', the implied update of c is an addition of
CRC(h'-h 0), where 0 is an all 0 block of the length of the data
block d, and addition and subtraction are bitwise modulo 2.
We know that a predetermined permutation of bits does not change
distance and weight statistics of the codewords. It follows that
such a transformation does not change the probability of undetected
errors.
We can then conceive the packet as if it was built from data d
followed by header h, compute the CRC accordingly, c=CRC(d h), and
update at the node with an addition of CRC(0 h'-h)=CRC(h'-h), but on
transmission, send the header part before the data and the CRC bits.
This will allow a faster computation of the CRC, while still letting
the header part lead (no change to the protocol).
Error detection, i.e., computing the CRC bits by the data and header
parts that arrive, and comparing them with the CRC part that arrives
together with them, can be done at the final, end-target node only,
and the detected errors will include unwanted changes introduced by
the intermediate nodes.
The analysis of the undetected error probability remains valid
according to the following rationale:
The packet started its way as a codeword. On its way, several
codewords were added to it (any information followed by the
corresponding CRC is a codeword). Let e denote the totality of
errors added to the packet, on its long, multi-hop journey. Because
the code is linear (i.e., the sum of two codewords is also a
codeword) the packet arriving to the end-target node is some codeword
+ e, and hence, as in our preceding analysis, e is undetected if and
only if it is a codeword by itself. This fact is the basis of our
above analysis, and hence that analysis applies here too. (See a
detailed discussion at [braun01].)
## 7. Complexity of Hardware Implementation

Comparing the cost of various CRC polynomials, we used a tool
available at http://www.easics.com/webtools/crctool to implement CRC
generators/checkers for various CRC polynomials. The program gives
either Verilog or VHDL code after specifying a polynomial, as well as
the number of data bits, k, to be handled in one clock cycle. For a
serial implementation, k would be one.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 10]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
The cost for either one generator or checker is shown in the
following table.
The number of 2-input XOR gates, for an un-optimized implementation,
required for various values of k:
+----------------------------------------------+
| Polynomial | k=32 | k=64 | k=128 |
+----------------------------------------------+
| CCITT-CRC32 | 488 | 740 | 1430 |
+----------------------------------------------+
| IEEE-802 | 872 | 1390 | 2518 |
+----------------------------------------------+
| CRC32Q(Wolf)| 944 | 1444 | 2534 |
+----------------------------------------------+
| CRC32C | 1036 | 1470 | 2490 |
+----------------------------------------------+
After optimizing (sharing terms) and in terms of Cells (4 cells per 2
input AND, 7 cells per 2 input XOR, 3 cells per inverter) the cost
for two candidate polynomials is shown in the following table.
+-----------------------------------+
| Polynomial | k=32 | k=64 |
+-----------------------------------+
| CCITT-CRC32 | 1855 | 3572 |
+-----------------------------------+
| CRC32C | 4784 | 7111 |
+-----------------------------------+
For 32-bit datapath, CCITT-CRC32 requires 40% of the number of cells
required by the CRC32C. For a 64-bit datapath, CCITT-CRC32 requires
50% of the number of cells.
The total size of one of our smaller chips is roughly 1 million
cells. The fraction represented by the CRC circuit is less than 1%.
## 8. Implementation of CRC32C

## 8.1 A Serial Implementation in Hardware

A serial implementation that processes one data bit at a time and
performs simultaneous multiplication of the data polynomial by x^32
and division by the CRC32C polynomial is described in the following
Verilog [ieee1364] code.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 11]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//File: CRC32_D1.v
//Date: Tue Feb 26 02:47:05 2002
//
//Copyright (C) 1999 Easics NV.
//This source file may be used and distributed without restriction
//provided that this copyright statement is not removed from the file
//and that any derivative work contains the original copyright notice
//and the associated disclaimer.
//
//THIS SOURCE FILE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS
//OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
//WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
//
//Purpose: Verilog module containing a synthesizable CRC function
//* polynomial: (0 1 2 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 16 22 23 26 32)
//* data width: 1
//
//Info: jand@easics.be (Jan Decaluwe)
//http://www.easics.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
module CRC32_D1;
// polynomial: (0 1 2 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 16 22 23 26 32)
// data width: 1
function [31:0] nextCRC32_D1;
input Data;
input [31:0] CRC;
reg [0:0] D;
reg [31:0] C;
reg [31:0] NewCRC;
begin
D[0] = Data;
C = CRC;
NewCRC[0] = D[0] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[1] = D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[2] = D[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[3] = C[2];
NewCRC[4] = D[0] ^ C[3] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[5] = D[0] ^ C[4] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[6] = C[5];
NewCRC[7] = D[0] ^ C[6] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[8] = D[0] ^ C[7] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[9] = C[8];
NewCRC[10] = D[0] ^ C[9] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[11] = D[0] ^ C[10] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[12] = D[0] ^ C[11] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[13] = C[12];
NewCRC[14] = C[13];
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 12]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
NewCRC[15] = C[14];
NewCRC[16] = D[0] ^ C[15] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[17] = C[16];
NewCRC[18] = C[17];
NewCRC[19] = C[18];
NewCRC[20] = C[19];
NewCRC[21] = C[20];
NewCRC[22] = D[0] ^ C[21] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[23] = D[0] ^ C[22] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[24] = C[23];
NewCRC[25] = C[24];
NewCRC[26] = D[0] ^ C[25] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[27] = C[26];
NewCRC[28] = C[27];
NewCRC[29] = C[28];
NewCRC[30] = C[29];
NewCRC[31] = C[30];
nextCRC32_D1 = NewCRC;
end
endfunction
endmodule
## 8.2 A Parallel Implementation in Hardware

A parallel implementation that processes 32 data bits at a time is
described in the following Verilog [ieee1364] code. In software
implementations, the next state logic is typically implemented by
means of tables indexed by the input and the current state.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//File: CRC32_D32.v
//Date: Tue Feb 26 02:50:08 2002
//
//Copyright (C) 1999 Easics NV.
//This source file may be used and distributed without restriction
//provided that this copyright statement is not removed from the file
//and that any derivative work contains the original copyright notice
//and the associated disclaimer.
//
//THIS SOURCE FILE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS
//OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
//WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
//
//Purpose: Verilog module containing a synthesizable CRC function
//* polynomial: p(0 to 32) := "100000101111011000111011011110001"
//* data width: 32
//
//Info: jand@easics.be (Jan Decaluwe)
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 13]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
//http://www.easics.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
module CRC32_D32;
// polynomial: p(0 to 32) := "100000101111011000111011011110001"
// data width: 32
// convention: the first serial data bit is D[31]
function [31:0] nextCRC32_D32;
input [31:0] Data;
input [31:0] CRC;
reg [31:0] D;
reg [31:0] C;
reg [31:0] NewCRC;
begin
D = Data;
C = CRC;
NewCRC[0] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[23]
^
D[21] ^ D[18] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[12] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^
D[7] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[4] ^ C[5] ^
C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[12] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^
C[18] ^ C[21] ^ C[23] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^
C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[1] = D[31] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[24] ^ D[22]
^
D[19] ^ D[18] ^ D[17] ^ D[13] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^
D[7] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[7] ^
C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[13] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^ C[19] ^
C[22] ^ C[24] ^ C[26] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[2] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[25] ^ D[23] ^ D[20]
^
D[19] ^ D[18] ^ D[14] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^
D[7] ^ D[6] ^ D[2] ^ C[2] ^ C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^
C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[14] ^ C[18] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[23] ^
C[25] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
NewCRC[3] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[26] ^ D[24] ^ D[21]
^
D[20] ^ D[19] ^ D[15] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^
D[8] ^ D[7] ^ D[3] ^ C[3] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^
C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[15] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[21] ^ C[24] ^
C[26] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[4] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[25] ^ D[22] ^ D[21]
^
D[20] ^ D[16] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^
D[8] ^ D[4] ^ C[4] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^
C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[16] ^ C[20] ^ C[21] ^ C[22] ^ C[25] ^
C[27] ^ C[29] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[5] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[28] ^ D[26] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^ D[21]
^
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 14]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
D[17] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^
D[5] ^ C[5] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^
C[14] ^ C[17] ^ C[21] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[26] ^ C[28] ^
C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[6] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[22]
^
D[21] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[11] ^
D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^
C[4] ^ C[5] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^
C[13] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[21] ^ C[22] ^
C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
NewCRC[7] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[23]
^
D[22] ^ D[18] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[12] ^
D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[1] ^
C[1] ^ C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^
C[12] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^ C[22] ^
C[23] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[27] ^ C[29] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[8] = D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[21] ^ D[19] ^ D[15] ^ D[13] ^ D[11]
^
D[10] ^ D[8] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[2] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[2] ^
C[4] ^ C[5] ^ C[8] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[13] ^ C[15] ^
C[19] ^ C[21] ^ C[24] ^ C[25];
NewCRC[9] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^ D[21]
^
D[20] ^ D[18] ^ D[17] ^ D[14] ^ D[11] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^
D[4] ^ D[3] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^
C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[11] ^ C[14] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^ C[20] ^
C[21] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[10] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^
D[22] ^
D[19] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[7] ^ D[6] ^ D[2] ^
D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[15] ^
C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[19] ^ C[22] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^
C[27] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
NewCRC[11] = D[21] ^ D[20] ^ D[12] ^ D[9] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^
D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^
C[4] ^ C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[9] ^ C[12] ^ C[20] ^ C[21];
NewCRC[12] = D[22] ^ D[21] ^ D[13] ^ D[10] ^ D[7] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^
D[4] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^
C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[10] ^ C[13] ^ C[21] ^ C[22];
NewCRC[13] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^
D[22] ^
D[21] ^ D[18] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[14] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^
D[9] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[9] ^
C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[14] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^ C[21] ^
C[22] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[14] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[25] ^ D[22] ^ D[21] ^ D[19] ^
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 15]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
D[16] ^
D[15] ^ D[13] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^ D[6] ^
D[5] ^ D[3] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[3] ^ C[5] ^
C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[13] ^ C[15] ^
C[16] ^ C[19] ^ C[21] ^ C[22] ^ C[25] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
NewCRC[15] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[26] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^ D[20] ^
D[17] ^
D[16] ^ D[14] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^
D[6] ^ D[4] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[4] ^ C[6] ^
C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[14] ^ C[16] ^
C[17] ^ C[20] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[26] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[16] = D[31] ^ D[27] ^ D[24] ^ D[23] ^ D[21] ^ D[18] ^
D[17] ^
D[15] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^
D[5] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[5] ^ C[7] ^ C[8] ^
C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[15] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^
C[21] ^ C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[27] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[17] = D[28] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[22] ^ D[19] ^ D[18] ^
D[16] ^
D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[6] ^
D[4] ^ D[3] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^
C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[16] ^ C[18] ^ C[19] ^ C[22] ^
C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[28];
NewCRC[18] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[21] ^
D[20] ^
D[19] ^ D[18] ^ D[16] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^
D[8] ^ D[6] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^
C[13] ^ C[14] ^ C[16] ^ C[18] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[21] ^
C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[19] = D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^
D[20] ^
D[19] ^ D[18] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[11] ^ D[8] ^
D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[4] ^
C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^ C[11] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^
C[18] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^
C[27] ^ C[29];
NewCRC[20] = D[31] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[20] ^ D[19] ^ D[18] ^
D[15] ^
D[8] ^ D[4] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^
C[4] ^ C[8] ^ C[15] ^ C[18] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[24] ^
C[25] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[21] = D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[21] ^ D[20] ^ D[19] ^ D[16] ^ D[9]
^
D[5] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[5] ^
C[9] ^ C[16] ^ C[19] ^ C[20] ^ C[21] ^ C[25] ^ C[26];
NewCRC[22] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[28] ^ D[25] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^
D[20] ^
D[18] ^ D[16] ^ D[12] ^ D[10] ^ D[9] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 16]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
D[5] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[5] ^
C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[9] ^ C[10] ^ C[12] ^ C[16] ^ C[18] ^
C[20] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[25] ^ C[28] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[23] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^
D[19] ^
D[18] ^ D[16] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[10] ^ D[7] ^
D[5] ^ D[3] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[3] ^ C[5] ^
C[7] ^ C[10] ^ C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[16] ^ C[18] ^
C[19] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
NewCRC[24] = D[31] ^ D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^
D[20] ^
D[19] ^ D[17] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[11] ^ D[8] ^
D[6] ^ D[4] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[4] ^ C[6] ^
C[8] ^ C[11] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[14] ^ C[17] ^ C[19] ^
C[20] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^ C[30] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[25] = D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[25] ^ D[23] ^ D[20] ^ D[17] ^
D[16] ^
D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[8] ^ D[6] ^ D[4] ^ D[3] ^
D[2] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^
C[13] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[20] ^ C[23] ^
C[25] ^ C[28] ^ C[29];
NewCRC[26] = D[31] ^ D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^
D[23] ^
D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[12] ^ D[8] ^ D[6] ^ D[3] ^ D[1] ^
D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[3] ^ C[6] ^ C[8] ^ C[12] ^ C[14] ^
C[15] ^ C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[27] ^ C[28] ^ C[29] ^
C[31];
NewCRC[27] = D[31] ^ D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[24] ^ D[23] ^ D[21] ^
D[18] ^
D[17] ^ D[15] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[8] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^
D[2] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[5] ^ C[6] ^
C[8] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[15] ^ C[17] ^ C[18] ^ C[21] ^
C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[27] ^ C[29] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[28] = D[31] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[24] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^
D[21] ^
D[19] ^ D[17] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[12] ^ D[8] ^ D[5] ^
D[4] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ D[0] ^ C[0] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^
C[3] ^ C[4] ^ C[5] ^ C[8] ^ C[12] ^ C[13] ^ C[14] ^
C[17] ^ C[19] ^ C[21] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[26] ^
C[27] ^ C[31];
NewCRC[29] = D[28] ^ D[27] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[23] ^ D[22] ^
D[20] ^
D[18] ^ D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[13] ^ D[9] ^ D[6] ^ D[5] ^
D[4] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ D[1] ^ C[1] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^
C[5] ^ C[6] ^ C[9] ^ C[13] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[18] ^
C[20] ^ C[22] ^ C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[27] ^ C[28];
NewCRC[30] = D[29] ^ D[28] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^ D[23] ^
D[21] ^
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 17]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
D[19] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[14] ^ D[10] ^ D[7] ^ D[6] ^
D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[3] ^ D[2] ^ C[2] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^ C[5] ^
C[6] ^ C[7] ^ C[10] ^ C[14] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^ C[19] ^
C[21] ^ C[23] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[28] ^ C[29];
NewCRC[31] = D[30] ^ D[29] ^ D[27] ^ D[26] ^ D[25] ^ D[24] ^
D[22] ^
D[20] ^ D[17] ^ D[16] ^ D[15] ^ D[11] ^ D[8] ^ D[7] ^
D[6] ^ D[5] ^ D[4] ^ D[3] ^ C[3] ^ C[4] ^ C[5] ^ C[6] ^
C[7] ^ C[8] ^ C[11] ^ C[15] ^ C[16] ^ C[17] ^ C[20] ^
C[22] ^ C[24] ^ C[25] ^ C[26] ^ C[27] ^ C[29] ^ C[30];
nextCRC32_D32 = NewCRC;
end
endfunction
## 8.3 Some Hardware Implementation Comments

The iSCSI spec specifies that the most significant 32 bits of the
data be complemented prior to performing the CRC computation. For
most implementations of the CRC algorithm, such as the ones described
here, which perform simultaneous multiplication by x^32 and division
by the CRC polynomial, this is equivalent to initializing the CRC
register to ones regardless of the CRC polynomial. For other
implementations, in particular one that only performs division by the
CRC polynomial (and for which the prescribed multiplication by x^32
is performed externally) initializing the CRC register to ones does
not have the same effect as complementing the most significant 32
bits of the message. With such implementations, for the CRC32c
polynomial, initializing the CRC register to 0x2a26f826 has the same
effect as complementing the most significant 32 bits of the data.
See reference [Tuikov&Cavanna] for more details.
## 8.4 Fast Hardware Implementation References

Fast hardware implementations start from a canonic scheme (as the one
presented in 7.2) and optimize it based on different criteria. Two
classic papers on this subject are [Albertengo1990] and [Glaise1997].
A more modern (and systematic) approach can be found in [Shie2001]
and [Sprachman2001].
## 9. Summary and Conclusions

The following table is a summary of the error detection capabilities
of the different codes analyzed. In the table, d is the minimal
distance at block length block (in bits), i/byte - software
instructions/byte, Table size (if table lookup needed), T-look number
of lookups/byte, Pudb - Pud burst and Puds - Pud sporadic:
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 18]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Code |d| Block |i/Byte|Tsize|T-look| Pudb | Puds |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Fletcher32|3| 2^19 | 2 | - | - | 10^-37 | 10^-36 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Adler32 |3| 2^19 | 3 | - | - | 10^-36 | 10^-35 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IEEE-802 |3| 2^16 | 2.75 | 2^18| 0.5/b| 10^-41 | 10^-40 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| CRC32C |3| 2^31-1| 2.75 | 2^18| 0.5/b| 10^-41 | 10^-40 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
The probabilities for undetected errors in the above table are
computed assuming uniformly distributed data. For real data - that
can be biased - [Stone98], checksums behave substantially worse than
CRCs.
Considering the protection level it offers, the lack of sensitivity
for biased data and the large block it can protect, we think that
CRC32C is a good choice as a basic error detection mechanism for
iSCSI.
Please observe also that burst errors characterized by a fixed
average time will have a higher impact on error detection capability
as the speed of the channels (machines and networks) increases. The
only way to keep the Pud within bounds for the long-term is to reduce
the BER by using better coding of lower levels of the channel.
## 10. Security Considerations

These codes detect unintentional changes to data such as those caused
by noise. In an environment where an attacker can change the data, it
can also change the error-detection code to match the new data.
Therefore, the error-detection codes overviewed here do not provide
protection against attacks. Indeed, these codes are not intended for
security purposes; they are meant to be used within some application,
and the application's threat model and security design control the
security considerations for the use of the CRC.
## 11. References and Bibliography

[Albertengo1990] G. Albertengo, R. Sisto, "Parallel CRC Generation
IEEE Micro", Vol. 10, No. 5, October 1990, pp. 63-
71.
[Arazi] B Arazi, "A commonsense Approach to the Theory of
Error Correcting codes".
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 19]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
[Baicheva] T Baicheva, S Dodunekov and P Kazakov, "Undetected
error probability performance of cyclic redundancy-
check codes of 16-bit redundancy", IEEE Proceedings
on Communications, 147:253-256, October 2000.
[Black] "Fast CRC32 in Software" by Richard Black, 1994, at
www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/bluebook/21/crc/crc.
html.
[Castagnoli93] Guy Castagnoli, Stefan Braeuer and Martin Herrman
"Optimization of Cyclic Redundancy-Check Codes with
24 and 32 Parity Bits", IEEE Transact. on
Communications, Vol. 41, No. 6, June 1993.
[braun01] Florian Braun and Marcel Waldvogel, "Fast
Incremental CRC Updates for IP over ATM Networks",
IEEE, High Performance Switching and Routing, 2001,
pp. 48-52.
[FITS] "NASA FITS documents" at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.
gov/docs/heasarc/ofwg/docs/general/checksum/node26.
html.
[Fujiwara89] Toru Fujiwara, Tadao Kasami, and Shu Lin, "Error
detecting capabilities of the shortened hamming
codes adopted forerror detection in IEEE standard
802.3", IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-
37:986989, September 1989.
[Glaise1997] Glaise, R. J., "A two-step computation of cyclic
redundancy code CRC-32 for ATM networks", IBM
Journal of Research and Development, Volume 41,
Number 6, 1997.
[ieee1364] IEEE Standard Hardware Description Language Based on
the Verilog Hardware Description Language, IEEE
Standard 1364-1995, December 1995.
[LinCostello] S. Lin and D.J. Costello, Jr., "Error Control
Coding: Fundamentals and Applications", Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983.
[Peterson] W Wesley Peterson & E J Weldon - Error Correcting
Codes - First Edition 1961/Second Edition 1972.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 20]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[Ritter] Ritter, T. 1986. The Great CRC Mystery. Dr. Dobb's
Journal of Software Tools. February. 11(2): 26-34,
76-83.
[Polynomials] "Information on Primitive and Irreducible
Polynomials" at http://www.theory.csc.uvic.ca/~cos/
inf/neck/PolyInfo.html.
[RFC1146] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP Alternate Checksum
Options", RFC 1146, March 1990.
[RFC1950] Deutsch, P. and J. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data
Format Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May
1996.
[Shie2001] Ming-Der Shieh, et. al, "A Systematic Approach for
Parallel CRC Computations", Journal of Information
Science and Engineering, Vol.17 No.3, pp.445-461.
[Sprachman2001] Michael Sprachman, "Automatic Generation of Parallel
CRC Circuits", IEEE Design & Test May-June 2001.
[Stone98] J. Stone et. al., "Performance of Checksums and
CRC's over Real Data", IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, Vol. 6, No. 5, October 1998.
[Williams] Ross Williams - A PAINLESS GUIDE TO CRC ERROR
DETECTION ALGORITHMS widely available on the net -
(e.g., ftp.adelaide.edu.au/pub/rocksoft/crc_v3.txt)
[Wolf82] J.K. Wolf, Arnold Michelson and Allen Levesque, "On
the probability of undetected error for linear block
codes", IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30:
317-324, 1982.
[Wolf88] J.K. Wolf, R.D. Blackeney, "An Exact Evaluation of
the Probability of Undetected Error for Certain
Shortened Binary CRC Codes", Proc. MILCOM - IEEE
1988.
[Wolf94J] J.K. Wolf and Dexter Chun, "The single burst error
detection performance of binary cyclic codes", IEEE
Transactions on Communications COM-42:11-13, January
1994.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 21]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
[Wolf94O] Dexter Chun and J.K. Wolf, "Special Hardware for
computing the probability of undetected error for
certain binary crc codes and test results", IEEE
Transactions on Communications, COM-42:2769-2772.
[Tuikov&Cavanna] Luben Tuikov and Vicente Cavanna, "The iSCSI CRC32C
Digest and the Simultaneous Multiply and Divide
Algorithm", January 30, 2002. White paper
distributed to the IETF ips iSCSI reflector.
## 12. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Matt Wakeley for providing us with the
motivation to co-author this paper and for helpful discussions on the
subject matter, during his employment with Agilent.
## 13. Authors' Addresses

Julian Satran
IBM, Haifa Research Lab
MATAM - Advanced Technology Center
Haifa 31905, Israel
EMail: julian_satran@il.ibm.com
Dafna Sheinwald
IBM, Haifa Research Lab
MATAM - Advanced Technology Center
Haifa 31905, Israel
EMail: Dafna_Sheinwald@il.ibm.com
Pat Thaler
Agilent Technologies
1101 Creekside Ridge Drive
Suite 100, M/S RH21
Roseville, CA 95661
EMail: pat_thaler@agilent.com
Vicente Cavanna
Agilent Technologies
1101 Creekside Ridge Drive
Suite 100, M/S RH21
Roseville, CA 95661
EMail: vince_cavanna@agilent.com
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 22]

RFC 3385 iSCSI CRC Considerations September 2002
## 14. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Sheinwald, et. al. Informational [Page 23]