2016-07-18 14:57, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > On 18/07/2016 14:53, Akhil Goyal wrote: > > On 7/18/2016 6:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2016-07-18 13:57, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > >>> On 18/07/2016 13:41, Akhil Goyal wrote: > >>>> In Ipsec-secgw application, while adding the outer IP header, > >>>> it seems that the application does not update the checksum value > >>>> for outbound packets. This result in incorrect ip->checksum in > >>>> the encrypted packet. > >> [...] > >>> > >>> It is intentional. The application is using IP checksum offload > >> > >> The correct behaviour is to have a software fallback (using rte_ip.h) > >> for drivers which do not support checksum offload. > >> But given it is just an example, it is normal to have this kind of > >> constraint. However I think it should be explained in its doc. > >> And a list of tested NICs would be nice to have. > >> > > Agreed. The driver that I was using did not enable checksum offload. > > It is good to have a fallback option. > > That's a good point. > So would it be enough to call out in the sample app guide that we use IP > checksum offload and > show a warning in case the Driver does not support such offload?
Yes and a list of tested NICs would make it perfect :)
