From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 16 15:50:16 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3140216A4CE; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exchange.wan.no (exchange.wan.no [80.86.128.88])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2D79143D68; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:50:07 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:50:04 +0100
Message-ID: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F5D97FF@exchange.wanglobal.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: ip_input - chksum - why is it done so early in ip_input?
Thread-Index: AcPci3XZNAfA0SjOROqn22VbyT2w8A==
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no>
To: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject: ip_input - chksum - why is it done so early in ip_input?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:50:16 -0000


Apologies for the cross-post, i wasnt sure if this was hackers or net =
material.

I've often wondered why ip checksumming is done on every incoming=20
packet and not only on the packets that need to be delivered locally.
It looks like a very expensive way of doing it, especially on high
PPS. Basically all hosts do checksumming so why not just pass the bad
packet on, making the forward process alot cheaper (cpu wise)?

I ran some tests (unable to disclose results) by removing it completely
and it seems to make a noticable impact on the performance.
Especially on for example gaming services where there is a high PPS =
versus
actual data.

Besides that i'd like to add that FreeBSD has the fastest forwarding =
engine
i've seen on any free OS. It's in my opinion a very suitable OS for=20
routing/forwarding.


_// Sten