From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akhil Goyal Subject: Re: ip_chksum not updated in ipsec-secgw application Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:23:22 +0530 Message-ID: <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com> References: <61dc3eb1-2522-78f5-871d-442d473ab69d@intel.com> <3199592.SCxHWQF8fy@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Thomas Monjalon , Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Return-path: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482E6952 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:53:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <3199592.SCxHWQF8fy@xps13> 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 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.