From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: ip_chksum not updated in ipsec-secgw application Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:20:26 +0200 Message-ID: <3199592.SCxHWQF8fy@xps13> References: <61dc3eb1-2522-78f5-871d-442d473ab69d@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy , Akhil Goyal Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B4E47CD for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:20:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id o80so116554042wme.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:20:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <61dc3eb1-2522-78f5-871d-442d473ab69d@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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.