On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:18:22AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:13:58PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > 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. > > I think we can just remove it. I folded that into the second patch, > thanks for reminding me.
Thanks. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
