FWIW, Win2000 has a mechanism for dealing with what they call task
offloading. If you decide to attack the problem, an inexpensive device you
can use for testing is the 3C905B; it does IP+TCP checksums.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Request for review (HW checksum patches)
> > From: Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:35:53 -0600
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Request for review (HW checksum patches)
> > X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
> > Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >
> > I have a set of patches which allows offloading checksums to
> > NICs which support it (right now, only the Alteon based cards).
> > The patch is at <http://www.freebsd.org/~jlemon/csum.patch>.
>
> This prompts a question on a related issue: there seems to be an increase
> in support of protocol operations on NICs (e.g., tickle/keep-alive support
> while the system is sleeping; IPSec; ...). Is there enough there to let
us
> build a general mechanism for communication between stack and driver for
> this sort of thing (e.g., a "meta-data" slot in the packet header which
> points to an mbuf, or other structure, that contains the details)?
>
> We're currently trying to deal with this in Mac OS X, and it'd be nice to
> avoid having multiple wheels of different size and shape in the same
source
> base.
>
> Regards,
>
> Justin
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
