4733f5a7   
   From: rick.jones2@hp.com   
      
   David Schwartz  wrote:   
   > On Mar 1, 9:57?am, Rick Jones  wrote:   
      
   > > Isn't the issue with the bad UDP checksum a result of Linux's   
   > > decision to defer the checksum to the copy to user space? ?That is   
   > > to say, they tried to do something clever that didn't quite fit   
   > > with the implied (via say age-old BSD) semantics of a socket?   
      
   > Yes to the first question, sort of to the second.   
      
   > First, nothing was wrong with Linux's decision. Validating a UDP   
   > checksum is optional, and a UDP datagram can be discarded at any   
   > time.   
      
   I do recall that *generating* a UDP checksum is optional, I don't   
   recall the specification saying that validating it was optional.   
      
   rick jones   
   --   
   I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of   
   "when", sometimes "where"; always "how much."  - Joubert   
   these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)   
   feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)