On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:28:18AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 06:00:33PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > I'm surprised that the Flow_Table configuration went into the database > > instead of being implemented as OpenFlow extensions. Naively, to me it > > seems like a bit of a layering violation. Can you please briefly > > explain your thinking on this issue? > > My thoughts on the division between the two protocols is: > > - Anything that doesn't apply to a particular OpenFlow switch > but to the system as a whole goes in the DB. (Doesn't apply > here.) > > - Anything that changes potentially very quickly goes in the > OpenFlow protocol. Generally speaking, that is per-flow > state. (Doesn't apply here.) > > - Anything specific to a particular OpenFlow connection has to > go in OpenFlow, obviously. (Doesn't apply here.) > > - Otherwise, it usually goes in the config protocol. > > I'm going to discuss the choice of protocols with Justin, to see what > he thinks, before I push this.
Justin didn't have a strong opinion. He could see arguments on both sides. For myself, I'm pretty confident that this is the correct choice, so I'm going to push this. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
