On Dec 8, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 09:57:30PM +, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 09:57:30PM +, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss mailing list
> >> where developers of some OpenFlo
On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss mailing list
>> where developers of some OpenFlow switches mentioned that they save an
>> entire copy of raw flows passed in by c
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss mailing list
> where developers of some OpenFlow switches mentioned that they save an
> entire copy of raw flows passed in by controllers because of the
> possibility that there
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:48:57AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss mailing list
> where developers of some OpenFlow switches mentioned that they save an
> entire copy of raw flows passed in by controllers because of the
> possibility that there
This was prompted by a conversation on the openflow-discuss mailing list
where developers of some OpenFlow switches mentioned that they save an
entire copy of raw flows passed in by controllers because of the
possibility that there might be wildcarded 1-bits, e.g. something like
192.168.1.1/255.255
