From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCF0A0679 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 22:52:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB501B588; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 22:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from magic.dirtside.com (magic.dirtside.com [199.33.225.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDF71B586 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 22:52:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minoc.dirtside.com ([199.33.225.53]) by magic.dirtside.com (8.14.3/) with ESMTP id x35KqlP4003452 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:52:47 -0700 X-Really-To: Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by minoc.dirtside.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05CADEBDB5 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id p6so3667471pgh.9 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZ2alcetARarF7iNEq5XQiTBR3dfzadxeWOTQkixu5t6k2HneM dRMuB0zcubbDi8vK6bJeCiLsuwxVIvFWRuwCqsY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3fH1UQlycQeWyZB7LAZ1GUDFk109J45UjFuhv62/6r3W4pe8VCe+opntRtsHKDGSFDn3k59+FsNiBrKkXKnI= X-Received: by 2002:a63:cf11:: with SMTP id j17mr14191026pgg.252.1554497566633; Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <59ccc981-0231-afd4-5717-45fbaff09644@eso.org> In-Reply-To: <59ccc981-0231-afd4-5717-45fbaff09644@eso.org> From: William Herrin Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:52:35 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "N. Benes" Cc: users@dpdk.org X-Spam-Checker: magic.dirtside.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -0.2 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 20 to 40% [score: 0.3713] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Spam-Score: -2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] checksums? X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:31 AM N. Benes wrote: > William Herrin: > > Which I understand to mean that +0 (0x0000) is a legal value in an IPv4 > > checksum field, but -0 (0xffff) is not. > > > > Is this a bug? > > Related threads: > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2019-March/004021.html > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128473.html Ah, my google-fu failed me. Thanks for the refs! So it is a bug and Olivier Matz is writing a patch. Few receivers stumble when presented with -0 as a checksum so it shouldn't be causing much of a problem but I did stumble across this long-ago conversation: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2EZyjq9tiQvyfyAXgPMKQ7MtToU https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/36lReuBvahPjxVTth1wpm7kt7zs Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: