Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:28:42 -0500 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Charles Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PR kern/15656 Message-ID: <200001171728.MAA19299@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:55:37 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.20.0001171153070.15159-100000@paradox.nexuslabs.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0001171153070.15159-100000@paradox.nexuslabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Agreed; however, the PR states that should the checksum be 0xFFFF, the > complement of which is 0x0000, the checksum should still be sent as > 0xFFFF. Ok, I looked at the PR, which seems to refer to the TCP header checksum, rather than the checksum in the IP header. So please disregard the specific pointer to RFC-791. > Can anyone verify this? I can verify that BSD sends 0-checksums; I can't > on Solaris. For other than the intentional UDP-checksum is zero case (which shouldn't really occur), the stack shouldn't be sending checksums in the protocol headers valued 0x0000. Looking at the in_cksum code, it would appear that a test at the very final step might be necessary (if you presume that the intermediate computations might produce a -0). But that code is highly tuned, and more than a cursory examination is called for. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001171728.MAA19299>