[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070124.160541.07096404.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:05:41 +0900 (JST)
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, nakam@...ux-ipv6.org, takamiya@...ntts.co.jp,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [IPV6] RAW: Add checksum default defines for MH.
In article <E1H9c3T-0005HA-00@...dolin.me.apana.org.au> (at Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:56:23 +1100), Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> says:
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > Did a complete agreement occur that this patch is ok?
>
> My only concern is that we're putting an arbitrary list of
> protocols in the generic raw.c. What's the justification
> for including these protocols in particular but not others?
>
> Is there any reason why the application can't just use the
> existing IPV6_CHECKSUM socket option to set the same fields?
Yes, it can.
The only reason they (not myself :-)) want to put this in is
because the RFC says that MIP6 implementation MUST compute
checksum by default when it passes the MH to userspace. On
the other hand, it also states that user space application SHOULD
set IPV6_CHECKSUM to 4.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists