On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:19:56PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 08/26/14 at 11:54am, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > It is easy to *say* it could be added later, but connecting to software > > forwarding in the kernel outside of OVS (which is important to some) > > would take significant effort since this set only connects switch > > hardware to OVS. > > Can you explain why that effort is more significant if a flow API > added first? I'm not saying it is easy to offload the existing > forwarding path, otherwise it would have been done already, but > I don't understand how the proposal makes this any more difficult. Sorry if I introduced any confusion. My intent was not to imply there was specific increased technical effort required to implement other software forwarding elements in hardware if a flow-based API is added first.
> > It may be that all software-based forwarding is done via OVS in the > > future, but it feels like we are long way from that future for those > > that do not want to use an external controller. > > Wait... I don't want to use OpenFlow to configure my laptop ;-) You don't? I do. ;-) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
