> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 04:49:06PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp> > > ... > >> + This requires the following. >> + - Change the default table-miss action (in the absense of table-miss >> + entry) from packet_in to drop for OF1.3+. Decide what to do if >> + a switch is configured to support multiple OF versions. >> + - Distinguish table-miss flow entry and make its packet_in reason >> + OFPR_NO_MATCH. (OFPR_TABLE_MISS for OF1.4) >> + - Avoid a table-miss flow entry matching to packets if there are >> + ordinary flow entries with priority 0 in the table. I.e. The >> + table-miss flow entry should have lesser effective priority. > > I wasn't aware that the table-miss flow entry was supposed to have lower > effective priority than other flow entries with table 0. Does the text > of the standard say this or imply this somewhere?
the standard is obscure as usual. surely there is a room for different interpretations. OF 1.3.2 2 Switch Components (p.8) > If a matching entry is found, the instructions associated with the > specific flow entry are executed. If no match is found in a flow > table, the outcome depends on configuration of the table-miss flow > entry: this seems to support lower effective priority behaviour. OF 1.3.2 5.3 Matching (p.15) the figure seems to imply the same. OF 1.3.2 5.4 Table-miss (p.16) > The table-miss flow entry matches packets in the table as expected > from its set of match fields and priority this sentence seems to say the opposite. is there anything else to look at then the standard pdf? (ONF-private stuff like openflow.h?) YAMAMOTO Takashi _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
