> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:41:20PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:11:00PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> >>> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 05:24:36PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> >>> >> As per spec, make packet-in reason for OpenFlow1.3 table-miss flow >> >>> >> entries no_match rather than action. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp> >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks! I really appreciate that you are working on conformance to >> >>> > later OpenFlow specs. >> >>> > >> >>> > Before I apply this, let me propose a different idea. I think that >> >>> > your >> >>> > approach is valid and will work, but it seems to me that it relies on >> >>> > the ofproto-provider implementation keeping track of where the >> >>> > packet-in >> >>> > came from. Another way would be to notice, when we decode the flow_mod >> >>> > that adds the flow to the flow table, that the flow_mod is for a >> >>> > catch-all flow, and then mark any packet_in ofpacts in the flow_mod as >> >>> > ones that should generate table_miss messages. Then the >> >>> > ofproto-provider would not have to do anything special, beyond properly >> >>> > passing along a value from the ofpact. >> >>> > >> >>> > What do you think? >> >>> >> >>> do you mean: >> >>> - add "reason" member to struct ofpact_output (as ofpact_controller) >> >>> - make ofputil_decode_flow_mod fill it >> >>> >> >>> i have no strong opinion. if you prefer it, i will try to implement it. >> >> >> >> Yes, that's what I mean. I would prefer to try it this way. If it is >> >> ugly or infeasible, then the code you have already written makes sense. >> > >> > ok, i'll try. >> >> i posted another version which implements the way you suggested. >> >> btw, the use of pin.reason to determine which of max_len (pin.send_len) >> or miss_send_len to use seems broken for NX CONTROLLER action, which >> seems to allow a user to specify a reason. while i'm ignorant of NX >> spec (is it publically available?), i guess it's necessary to have >> pin.real_reason or something like that. > > NX spec? There is no spec beyond what is in nicira-ext.h. There's > nothing private we're holding back.
ok, it wasn't clear to me that nicira-ext.h is the spec. thanks for clarification. > > (I'll read the patch and figure out the desired behavior here later, but > I thought I should respond to that part right away.) for example, should miss_send_len be applied for NX CONTROLLER action with reason=no_match? nicira-ext.h doesn't seem to describe this kind of details. YAMAMOTO Takashi > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
