[ovs-dev] [PATCH 01/19] ofp-util: Add OFPUTIL_P_OF12, NXPIF_OPENFLOW12 and NXFF_OPENFLOW12
horms at verge.net.au
Wed Jun 13 17:06:44 PDT 2012
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:54:38PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Add OFPUTIL_P_OF12, NXPIF_OPENFLOW12 and NXFF_OPENFLOW12 for Open Flow 1.2
> > OFPUTIL_P_OF12_TID and in turn OFPUTIL_P_OF12_ANY is not provided as
> > OFPUTIL_P_OF12 supports the use of table ids in modify flow messages.
> Right, that's what I expected, good to see we're on the same channel
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au>
> I'd be inclined to use an _OXM suffix instead of _OPENFLOW12 but it
> doesn't really matter.
Funny you should mention that, I originally had _OXM then changed
it to _OPENFLOW12. I'm happy with either approach.
> One thing to note (maybe you already realize it?) is that it's difficult
> to support OF1.0 and OF1.2 but not OF1.1 because the OpenFlow version
> negotiation protocol only works with contiguous ranges of supported
> versions. There's some discussion in ONF about enhancing the version
> negotiation protocol but no agreement has yet been made.
Yes, I realise that. For my immediate purposes its not a particular problem
as I can control both sides. And in the slightly longer term I think that
OF 1.1 and 1.2 support ought to get merged into Open vSwtich at about the
same time. So I think we are clear.
> I'm not sure that we need to support a packet-in format for OpenFlow
> 1.2. We implemented the special packet-in format for NXM because we
> needed some of the 1.2 "packet-in" features in 1.0. The 1.2 packet-in
> already has those features, except for the cookie that was matched,
> which 1.3 added. So we could presumably just drop the packet-in format
> extension for 1.2.
Thanks, I have been wondering about what to do about that.
More information about the dev