Final answer:
UDP's use of a checksum is a more rigorous check than link-layer CRCs, making it better capable of detecting corrupted bits. UDP's checksum is not a more rigorous check than link-layer CRCs; rather, CRCs are generally considered more reliable for error detection.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement is true. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) utilizes a checksum to detect data corruption during transmission. The checksum algorithm used by UDP is more rigorous compared to the cyclic redundancy checks (CRCs) used at the link layer. This means that UDP's checksum is better capable of detecting corrupted bits, providing a higher level of error detection.
UDP's checksum is not a more rigorous check than link-layer CRCs; rather, CRCs are generally considered more reliable for error detection. CRCs use polynomial division, which is more effective in detecting data transmission errors than the simpler checksum method employed by UDP.
The question is whether UDP's use of a checksum is a more rigorous check than link-layer CRCs (Cyclic Redundancy Checks) for detecting corrupted bits. The answer to the question is false. Both the checksum in UDP and CRC at the link-layer are methods used for error detection. However, the link-layer CRC is generally considered a stronger form of error checking compared to the UDP checksum. The checksum in UDP is a simple method that adds up the values of all the words in the header and data sections and then performs one's complement arithmetic to calculate the checksum value. On the other hand, CRC uses polynomial division to detect errors, which provides a more reliable error detection capability. It is designed to detect not only simple errors but also patterns of errors that can occur in digital data transmission, making it more rigorous than the UDP checksum in terms of error detection.