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
