Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-21 Thread Ethan Jackson
Thanks, I've merged this. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:32, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30:56AM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> According to the specification the enqueue action should refer to >> "a valid physical port", or OFPP_IN_PORT.  It would be strange to >> attach a queueing

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-21 Thread Ben Pfaff
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:30:56AM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > According to the specification the enqueue action should refer to > "a valid physical port", or OFPP_IN_PORT. It would be strange to > attach a queueing discipline to the local port, but I see no reason > to restrict it. Looks good,

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-19 Thread Ben Pfaff
DESIGN is OK too, at least for now. All the port terminology is changing in OpenFlow 1.2 anyway. This might be fixed, I don't know. On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:20:49AM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote: > Do you think we should put that in DESIGN? Also, we should start > chipping away at ambiguities in

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-19 Thread Justin Pettit
Do you think we should put that in DESIGN? Also, we should start chipping away at ambiguities in the OpenFlow spec by filing spec bugs in the ONF bug tracker. I've been trying to do that with areas that I see. --Justin On Nov 18, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > OK, that's good enough f

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-18 Thread Ben Pfaff
OK, that's good enough for me. I've been thinking of creating a section in the ovs-vswitchd manpage that describes Open vSwitch interpretations of the OpenFlow text, in places where it's not entirely clear. Would you mind starting it out, by adding a sentence or so that mentions our interpretatio

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-18 Thread Ethan Jackson
I suppose it depends on how you interpret the term physical port. It certainly isn't a nic, but it does have a linux device which I assume you can attach linux QoS to. In that sense, it is more of a physical port then OFPP_NONE, or OFPP_FLOOD. I don't think we should take a strict interpretation

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofp-util: Support OFPP_LOCAL in enqueue actions.

2011-11-18 Thread Ben Pfaff
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:03:38PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > According to the specification the enqueue action should refer to > "a valid physical port", or OFPP_IN_PORT. It would be strange to > attach a queueing discipline to the local port, but I see no reason > to restrict it. Is OFPP_LOC