On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:21:28PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:41:11AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > I am wondering if you would like me to add support for matching on > > in_phy_port, which appears to be optional. I am quite happy to do so, and > > indeed I have most of the pieces in place to do so. However if not I wonder > > if there is anything much to be done at all as the spec states that > > in_phy_port may be omitted if it is the same as phy_port: our current plan > > is for that to always be the case. > > Hmm. > > I guess there is nothing to do for OF1.2+ then. > > I checked what we did for OF1.1, and the answer was that we had never > implemented packet-in at all for OF1.1 (!). I sent out a pair of > patches to fix that: > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2013-December/034461.html > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2013-December/034462.html > > I guess no one has tested OF1.1 support yet. Not too surprising, > since it's pretty recent in OVS and hardly used at all in the wild.
No not surprising, other than that no one noticed. What is your feeling on what is required for in_phy_port on OF1.1? Mine is that OF1.1 stipulates that in_port must be the port used for matching and must be available to OpenFlow processing. My reading is that means that we don't have to make in_phy_port available as a match and moreover we probably don't want to at this stage. So it seems to me that if/when OF1.1 packet_in support is implemented it will be sufficient just to set in_phy_port to in_port when creating the OF1.1 packet_in message: I imagine this will be trivial a trivial part of the implementation. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
