I am actually confused by the fix. OFPBRC_IS_SLAVE is an OpenFlow 1.2+ error message, correct? The comment in the header file is changed and it appears that this is an OpenFlow 1.0+ error message and I am not sure if that's right. Likewise OFPBRC_IS_SLAVE is returned while rejecting slave controllers regardless of the version of the switch. If the switch is not running in 1.2+ mode, the code that sends the error is not going to understand this error message, right? Which in that case, it will probably send a Nicira vendor error back to the controller, instead of the EPERM_ERROR as the switch used to send previously. Is this what you are aiming to do? Am I missing something?
Thank you, Anup On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > I sent out a fix: > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-January/050612.html > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:01:27PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > The OF1.2 feature was based on an Open vSwitch extension to OpenFlow > > first implemented for OF1.0. We need to continue supporting that > > extension. > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:12:30PM -0500, Anup Khadka wrote: > > > Do OpenFlow versions prior to OF 1.2 even support the concept of slave > > > controllers? I couldn't find anything in the specs. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 03:55:57PM -0500, Anup Khadka wrote: > > > > > I have noticed that OVS rejects flow-mod request from a > slave-controller > > > > > with an OFPBRC_EPERM request code. Isn't the more appropriate code > here > > > > is: > > > > > OFPBRC_IS_SLAVE? > > > > > > > > > > Same thing when a slave controller sends a packet out. > > > > > > > > That does sound better, for OF1.2+. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
