| To: | "cramerj" <cramerj@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Bad UDP checksum with 82540EM |
| From: | Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:50:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>, <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <101E0EB68A545748974019DC227C554007CBDD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (cramerj@xxxxxxxxx's message of "Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:22:29 -0800") |
| References: | <101E0EB68A545748974019DC227C554007CBDD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
"cramerj" <cramerj@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Just for clarification...how are you determining a bad checksum? Are > you using tcpdump/ethereal on those test machines (that you're > transmitting from), or are you capturing packets on the wire (from some > other system receiving the packets). Actually both. I have first noticed the issue because my DHCP clients didn't accept the answers from the server. > If the former, then please see the following thread. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=107422099800006&r=1&w=2 > > Is this perhaps the issue you're seeing? I just double checked, the packets are really going out with a bad checksum. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@xxxxxxx SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Change proxy_arp to respond only for valid neighbours, Julian Anastasov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] [WANROUTER] LL_RESERVED_SPACE, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Bad UDP checksum with 82540EM, Andreas Schwab |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH][RFC] use completions instead of sleep_on for rpciod, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |