similar to: Centos 7: UPD packet checksum verification?

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 3:58:31 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: > > what does Centos 7 do with UPD packets having invalid checksums? > > By default I assume they are just dropped - that's what should happen. Hm that's what thought. > > Are such packets inevitably dropped? > > Applications can specifically disable checksum checking for the kernel > network stack

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: > First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and > am interested in it. I may get things wrong!! > > > Both physical interfaces show the same. But does this mean it's on as in > > "rx- checksumming: on" or off as in "tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]"? > > As

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:00:22 AM CET Nataraj wrote: > On 1/26/20 5:44 PM, hw wrote: > > On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: > >> First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and > >> am interested in it. I may get things wrong!! > >> > >>> Both physical interfaces show the same. But does

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:10:48 AM CET Nataraj wrote: > On 1/28/20 12:39 PM, hw wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:00:22 AM CET Nataraj wrote: > >> On 1/26/20 5:44 PM, hw wrote: > >>> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: > >>>> First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and >

> what does Centos 7 do with UPD packets having invalid checksums? By default I assume they are just dropped - that's what should happen. > > Are such packets inevitably dropped? Applications can specifically disable checksum checking for the kernel network stack on a per application basis, but the default is to check and drop if in error. > Does a network card drop them

First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and am interested in it. I may get things wrong!! > > > Both physical interfaces show the same. But does this mean it's on as in "rx- > checksumming: on" or off as in "tx-checksum-ipv4: off [fixed]"? As far as I understand it rx-checksum is the underlying wire checksumming - and from

On 1/26/20 5:44 PM, hw wrote: > On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: >> First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and >> am interested in it. I may get things wrong!! >> >>> Both physical interfaces show the same. But does this mean it's on as in >>> "rx- checksumming: on" or off as in

On 1/28/20 12:39 PM, hw wrote: > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:00:22 AM CET Nataraj wrote: >> On 1/26/20 5:44 PM, hw wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: >>>> First of all - disclaimer - I'm no network specialist, I just read and >>>> am interested in it. I may get things wrong!! >>>>

On 1/29/20 4:48 AM, hw wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:10:48 AM CET Nataraj wrote: >> On 1/28/20 12:39 PM, hw wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:00:22 AM CET Nataraj wrote: >>>> On 1/26/20 5:44 PM, hw wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:18:36 PM CET Pete Biggs wrote: >>>>>> First of all - disclaimer - I'm

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:52:50 PM CET Nataraj wrote: [...] > By burst, I mean that you don't have a bandwidth commitment with an SLA > from your provider. A bandwidth commitment means that you are paying a > provider to guarantee you so many MB or GB of bandwidth and this is > guaranteed to you. This means it is allocated to you in their network > allotments and you

On 1/29/20 3:26 PM, hw wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:52:50 PM CET Nataraj wrote: > [...] >> By burst, I mean that you don't have a bandwidth commitment with an SLA >> from your provider. A bandwidth commitment means that you are paying a >> provider to guarantee you so many MB or GB of bandwidth and this is >> guaranteed to you. This means it is

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 20:45, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. > > It is about VOIP calls via SRTP being interrupted at irregular intervals. The > intervals appear to depend on the time of day: Such phone calls can last for > a duration of about 5--25 minutes during the day to up to 1.5 hours at around > 3am before

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 1:50:57 PM CET Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 20:45, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. > > > > It is about VOIP calls via SRTP being interrupted at irregular intervals. > > The intervals appear to depend on the time of day: Such phone calls can > > last

> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 1:50:57 PM CET Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 20:45, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: >> > > I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. >> > >> > It is about VOIP calls via SRTP being interrupted at irregular >> intervals. >> > The intervals appear to depend on the time of day: Such

In my Linux VM, I am unable to change scatter-gather / tx-checksumming / TCP-segmentation offload features by ethtool command. I am using virtio nic with vhostuser port backend. It shows me an error: Cannot change tx-checksumming Cannot change scatter-gather Cannot change tcp-segmentation offload Could not change any device features Ony running command ethtool -k ens3, I get the following:

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:56, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > > For voice, that > > usually means a drop or other ugliness because it is assumed that if > > the quality is too bad, the people would just call each other again. > > That's a funny idea. Phone calls just worked fine and were good quality 25 > years ago, and mostly long before that. I have

On Sep 23, 2014, at 3:55 AM, Henning Brauer <hb-nut at bsws.de> wrote: > We have upd(4) attaching to these devices now. Either nut needs a > driver getting status from upd (trivial, will show up in the > hw.sensors sysctl tree) or we need some way for nut still being able > to talk to the ups directly, without upd and nut interfering with each > other. While a upd(4) driver

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 12:38:32 AM CET Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:56, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > > For voice, that > > > usually means a drop or other ugliness because it is assumed that if > > > the quality is too bad, the people would just call each other again. > > > > That's a funny idea. Phone calls

Hi, I'm trying to get Theora working with a video conferencing application we are developing. This application sends the audio content via RTP over UPD, and as one would expect, there is a draft for how a Theora stream is supposed to be wrapped into an RTP stream. http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-00.txt The problem is that it is not obvious to me how the raw

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Vladislav Yasevich wrote: > Split IPv6 support for UFO into its own feature similiar to TSO. > This will later allow us to re-enable UFO support for virtio-net > devices. > > Signed-off-by: Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevic at redhat.com> > --- > include/linux/netdev_features.h | 7 +++++-- > include/linux/netdevice.h | 1