Agreed on all counts.
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:31:45PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Yep this all seems reasonable to me, however I don't think it should > be done specifically for BFD. Instead we should do it for all > protocols (CFM LACP BFD) which have something to say about the > liveness of a link. That said, I don't intend to put time into this > at the moment. Feel free to submit a patch if you think it's > important. > > Thanks, > Ethan > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:48:52AM +0000, Rajahalme, Jarno (NSN - FI/Espoo) > > wrote: > >> Ethan, > >> > >> Looking at the code, it seems to me that there is no link from BFD > >> to OpenFlow PORT_STATUS message. I might be wrong, but it seems > >> possible that BFD indicated port state changes could be communicated > >> to the controller with the OFPPS_LIVE (= OFPUTIL_PS_LIVE) status > >> bit, using the ofproto_port_set_state() function. > >> > >> This from the OpenFlow 1.3.1 spec: > >> > >> "- A port is considered live if it has the OFPPS_LIVE flag set in > >> its port state. Port liveness may be managed by code outside of the > >> OpenFlow portion of a switch, defined outside of the OpenFlow spec > >> (such as Spanning Tree or a KeepAlive mechanism). At a minimum, the > >> port should not be considered live if the port config bit > >> OFPPC_PORT_DOWN indicates the port is down, or if the port state bit > >> OFPPS_LINK_DOWN indicates the link is down." > >> > >> OFPPS_LIVE is specified for OF1.1+ with a comment "Live for Fast > >> Failover Group", but I don't see why the bit could not be used also > >> without any failover groups. Thoughts? > > > > Seems reasonable to me at first glance. But I guess we'd also want to > > link it to CFM? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
