On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > I'm not sure that we care about using exactly the same naming as the > OpenFlow 1.0 document. Our header file diverged years ago and now I > imagine that the diff is practically the whole file.
That's true. As I mentioned earlier, I'd still prefer to use "tos" when the bit positions match TOS--even if they can only match the DSCP part. > Do you think that FWW_* bits are superior to a mask in this case? > It's not clear-cut, to me, since it's a matter of a single byte and > both fields are part of that byte. It seemed slightly more efficient, and I think you had suggested it in the review of my ECN changes. --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
