On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:50:13AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:25:39AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>> >> If there is a lot of churn in creation and de
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:50:13AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:25:39AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> >> If there is a lot of churn in creation and deletion of
> >> interfaces, we may end up recycling the of
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:25:39AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>> If there is a lot of churn in creation and deletion of
>> interfaces, we may end up recycling the ofport value of a
>> recently deleted interface for a newly created interface
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:25:39AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> If there is a lot of churn in creation and deletion of
> interfaces, we may end up recycling the ofport value of a
> recently deleted interface for a newly created interface.
> This may result in an old stale openflow rule applyin
If there is a lot of churn in creation and deletion of
interfaces, we may end up recycling the ofport value of a
recently deleted interface for a newly created interface.
This may result in an old stale openflow rule applying
on the newly created interface.
With this commit, when a new port is add
