On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 02:26:46PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> When modifying IP addresses or ports on a UDP packet we don'
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 02:26:46PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> When modifying IP addresses or ports on a UDP packet we don't
> >> correctly follow the rules for unchecksummed pac
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> When modifying IP addresses or ports on a UDP packet we don't
>> correctly follow the rules for unchecksummed packets. This meant
>> that packets without a checksum can be given a i
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> When modifying IP addresses or ports on a UDP packet we don't
> correctly follow the rules for unchecksummed packets. This meant
> that packets without a checksum can be given a incorrect new checksum
> and packets with a checksum can
When modifying IP addresses or ports on a UDP packet we don't
correctly follow the rules for unchecksummed packets. This meant
that packets without a checksum can be given a incorrect new checksum
and packets with a checksum can become marked as being unchecksummed.
This fixes it to handle those r
