On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Robin Haberkorn wrote: > regarding test-openflowd vs. ovs-vswitchd: > we may eventually migrate to ovs-vswitchd but this introduces > some new problems related to its configuration via a stand-alone > database. > I think it does makes sense for remote configuration of not only switch > flows but other aspects of the switch configuration (datapaths, > ordinary L2/L3 switching, etc) - on full blown servers. > We however *embed* openvswitch and would like to control the datapaths > via *our own* configuration database. also, we use openvswitch > merely as an openflow-enabled switch. integrating another > configuration database unnecessarily complicates openvswitch > setup and there are also space & memory limitations to consider. > I'm sure that many embedded system developers who would like > to integrate openvswitch have similar concerns.
I know of vendors integrating OVSDB into very memory-limited embedded systems. Therefore, I don't think this is a real obstacle. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
