On 18/07/2016 15:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-07-18 14:57, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: >> 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? > Yes > and a list of tested NICs would make it perfect :)
There is no mention of specific tested hardware in the example guides, is there? I would prefer to just point to doc/guides/nics/overview.rst to check if the NIC supports IP checksum offload and in the application itself check for such capability and display a warning in case it is not supported. Sergio
