From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Subject: Re: ip_chksum not updated in ipsec-secgw application Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4ff03933-ba75-87d4-84ec-320160c0a60f@intel.com> References: <61dc3eb1-2522-78f5-871d-442d473ab69d@intel.com> <3199592.SCxHWQF8fy@xps13> <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Akhil Goyal , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D3F2C07 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:57:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.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" 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? Sergio