Alexander Duyck <alexander.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually you may want to go the other way on that. If they weren't flipping the checksum value for GRE before why should we start doing that now? I'm pretty sure the checksum mangling is a very UDP centric thing. There is no need to introduce it to other protocols.
If different checksum representations are needed, then there really should be an explicit indication of whether it is a UDP-style checksum or other in the skb I would think rather than guessing it based on the offset. Of course it would be convenient if all the protocols that use a one's complement checksum would tolerate the UDP representation. I have a long (and now old) history working with real one's complement machines, and so I would want to believe that any correct implementation would tolerate it, but I don't know for a fact that they do.
-- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
