On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:22:55PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:00:33PM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: > >> Bonding metaflow does not need it, but one can envision that > >> controller may want to manage (some subset of) recirc_ids in the > >> future. In those cases, table 254 is a good candidate. > > > > Sure. Or one could give a subset of recirc ids to the controller, I > > guess, by making table 254 resubmit those to some more ordinary table. > > I'm not sure that we want a controller to know about recirculation. I > would consider it to be an implementation detail - the controller > expresses its needs through the use of resubmit or multiple tables and > some of those needs can be satisfied entirely in userspace and some > can't be. However, fundamentally userspace vs. kernel is not exposed > to the controller.
I don't know of any plans to expose recirculation to the controller yet. This part of the discussion is rather hypothetical. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
