[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: tcp checksum calculation

To: kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org,linux-india-programmers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: tcp checksum calculation
From: Amit Shah <shahamit@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:35:55 +0530
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0202162005170.23170-100000@cygnus.it.iitb.ac.in>
List-archive: <http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/>
List-help: <mailto:listar@nl.linux.org?Subject=help>
List-owner: <mailto:riel@nl.linux.org>
List-post: <mailto:kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org>
List-software: Listar version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:kernelnewbies-request@nl.linux.org?Subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:kernelnewbies-request@nl.linux.org?Subject=unsubscribe>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;kernelnewbies-archive@nl.linux.org
References: <20020214204546.240fa19c.anirane@ip.eth.net><Pine.LNX.4.21.0202162005170.23170-100000@cygnus.it.iitb.ac.in>
Sender: kernelnewbies-bounce@nl.linux.org

Thanks for all the help... as I said, I solved the problem by using the
incremental checksum method described in rfc1624, haven't looked through
the ip_nat_dumb code, but, I think using incremental checksums would be
faster than doing the checksumming all over again...

--- 

  - Amit
http://amitshah.nav.to/
amitshah@gmx.net
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
IRC Channel:   irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
Web Page:      http://www.kernelnewbies.org/

References:
- tcp checksum calculation
  - From: Amit Shah <anirane@ip.eth.net>
- Re: tcp checksum calculation
  - From: J Pradeep <pradeep@it.iitb.ac.in>

Prev by Date: Take me.
Next by Date: How to compile kernel without networking support
Prev by thread: Re: tcp checksum calculation
Next by thread: skbuff
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread