On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:08:17PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> 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.

... I now see that you did that. So I think we can remove
the in_phy_port item in OPENFLOW-1.1+ if your patches are merged.
Or at the very least update it to say that there is a minimal
implementation in place and something more sophisticated seems
to be of dubious value.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to