On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> In RFC 6864 it is stated that we can essentially ignore the IPv4 ID field
>>> if we have not and will not use fragmentation
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> In RFC 6864 it is stated that we can essentially ignore the IPv4 ID field
>> if we have not and will not use fragmentation. Such a frame is defined
>> as having the DF flag set to 1,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> In RFC 6864 it is stated that we can essentially ignore the IPv4 ID field
> if we have not and will not use fragmentation. Such a frame is defined
> as having the DF flag set to 1, and the MF and frag_offset as 0. Currently
> for GRO we w
In RFC 6864 it is stated that we can essentially ignore the IPv4 ID field
if we have not and will not use fragmentation. Such a frame is defined
as having the DF flag set to 1, and the MF and frag_offset as 0. Currently
for GRO we were requiring that the inner header always have an increasing
IPv
