From owner-freebsd-current  Tue May 19 15:06:17 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28077
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28001
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from root@implode.root.com)
Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26849;
	Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199805192206.PAA26849@implode.root.com>
To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: fast forwarding patches 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 May 1998 18:00:13 +0200."
             <199805191600.SAA09893@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:00 -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>Is it ok to forward packets with an invalid checksum ? This code
>does not check...

   If we want to conform to RFC-1812 (the IPv4 router requirements RFC),
then yes, the header checksum must be checked. I personally think that
for "fast" forwarding, it is a waste of CPU cycles. The IP checksum will
be checked by the next hop, or at worst, at the destination host.

-DG

David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message