From: Craig Small (yrwtknr.svbsdhogq@netribe.it)
Date: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 03:37:13 EET
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:17:59PM +0000, Jorge Matias wrote:
> I have already tested it. What I found was something I have seen before.
> It says that the frame has checksum error and then it shows the expected
> checksum exactly equal to received checksum.
That was the problem, I though I fixed it/ What version of rspfd.c
do you have?
cvs status rspfd.c
I have 1.4 here.
Does line 533 look like:
if (rspf_check((unsigned char*)rrh, length, saddr ,daddr) != rrh->checksum && !wrong_version) {
The != rrh->checksum is the important bit.
> Do you want my checksum patch to rspfd-1.0?
Send it on, it may clear some things up, especially if you are getting
correct answers.
- Craig
-- Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <terhi.victor@logonet.com> MIEEE <fgrym@ucsf.edu> Debian developer <hky.faacrxkxfh@fcbmanila.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in the body of a message to ftoqid.bsyf@bacoll.ac.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 03:41:33 EET