Darren Reed wrote:
> 
> In some email I received from Charles M. Hannum, sie wrote:
> >
> >
> > As I pointed out, and Steiner verified, there are existing hardware
> > implementation that do *not* verify the checksum.  So arguing that RFC
> > 1812 (which isn't even a standard) requires it is a bit silly.
> 
> Do you have any objections to a sysctl to toggle this (small performance
> hit for the check aside) behaviour ?
> 
> Or on the other hand, how many people (besides Perry) would actually
> enable checksumming on hosts doing gatewaying for packets being forwarded
> given the pros and cons as discussed to date ?

Well, obviously, I cannot say how may would, but I would :-)
Personnally, I'd prefer it the other way round. Leave the default
behavoiur
as it is right now, and implement a sysctl, or even a compile time
option
to enable the optimizations. Besides, Charles, did you do any testing
on how much computing power/network throughput you change would yield?

Just my 0.02 EUR :-)

  Guenther