On 13 May 2014, at 07:21, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:22:03PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 12 May 2014, at 03:36, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 09 May 2014, at 03:35, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:22:03PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 12 May 2014, at 03:36, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >> On 09 May 2014, at 03:35, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> >>
[...]
> > Oops, sorry. You're right. Probably I wa
On 12 May 2014, at 03:45, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 04:22:36PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>
>> On 09 May 2014, at 12:46, Michael Tuexen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09 May 2014, at 03:35, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>>>
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:40:22PM +0200, Michael Tuexen
On 09 May 2014, at 12:46, Michael Tuexen
wrote:
> On 09 May 2014, at 03:35, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:40:22PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On 07 May 2014, at 10:37, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>>>
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 09 May 2014, at 03:35, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:40:22PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 07 May 2014, at 10:37, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 07 May 2014, at 09:56, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:40:22PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 07 May 2014, at 10:37, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >> On 07 May 2014, at 09:56, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:52:47AM +0200, Micha
On 07 May 2014, at 10:37, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 07 May 2014, at 09:56, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:52:47AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 07 May 2014, at 09:56, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:52:47AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> >> On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexe
On 07 May 2014, at 09:56, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:52:47AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexen
>>> wrote:
>>>
Dear all,
during testing I found that Free
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:52:47AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> >
> > On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> during testing I found that FreeBSD head (on a raspberry pi) accepts SCTP
> >> packet
On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexen
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> during testing I found that FreeBSD head (on a raspberry pi) accepts SCTP
>> packet
>> with bad checksums. After debugging this I figured out that this is a
>> proble
On 02 May 2014, at 16:02, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexen
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> during testing I found that FreeBSD head (on a raspberry pi) accepts SCTP
>> packet
>> with bad checksums. After debugging this I figured out that this is a
>> proble
On 02 May 2014, at 10:22 , Michael Tuexen
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> during testing I found that FreeBSD head (on a raspberry pi) accepts SCTP
> packet
> with bad checksums. After debugging this I figured out that this is a problem
> with
> the csum_flags defined in mbuf.h.
>
> The SCTP code on
Dear all,
during testing I found that FreeBSD head (on a raspberry pi) accepts SCTP packet
with bad checksums. After debugging this I figured out that this is a problem
with
the csum_flags defined in mbuf.h.
The SCTP code on its input path checks for CSUM_SCTP_VALID, which is defined in
mbuf.h:
14 matches
Mail list logo