From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:09:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:09:12 -0400 Received: from minus.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.97]:28173 "HELO ms2.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:08:55 -0400 Message-Id: <200108240031.EAA00336@mops.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: hardware checksumming To: cwidmer@iiic.ethz.ch Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:31:51 +0400 (MSD) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200108231458.f7NEwqk24604@mail.swissonline.ch> from "Christian Widmer" at Aug 23, 1 07:15:02 pm From: Alexey Kuznetsov X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > but receiving is difficult Hmm... on receiving it is enough trivial and we do this. > something else: you need quite a lot of ram on the NIC to buffer fragments. A lot? Even ne2000 had 16K of memory, which is enough to do this. It is the first. Card need not hold fragments, it may send fragments in backward order. It is the second. Well, and the last but not the least: acenic has exactly this amount of memory: "lots" :-) It is the third. :-) > do you know any NIC that is capable of chaining? acenic. We do not use this, though this is also not difficult. Alexey