Hi, I find the situation is more interesting than I thought. At beginning, it's just caused by the fragmentation,I can't ping with any fragmentation. however, when I tried several times. I found something new. I can ping successfully with large size packet, it that's the first flow between 2 switches,after the flows timeouts on the switch, I can't ping any more.
Here is the output I get with same topology I described above. The 1st ping is successful. After the flows timeout on all the switches, I can't ping any more with large size packets, but I can still issue ping with small size packets. Here are the attempts with different sizes. And there are still some situations that I can't ping with large packets at the beginning. I'm thinking that maybe there are some packets had been forwarded between these 2 switches before I ping. I want to fix this problem for pox to contribute some code for this project, because it really helps me a lot. I do love the concept of pox than other similar controller,like Ryu. Can anybody give me some clue about this problem? ------------------------------------------------- mininet> h1 ping h3 -s 5000 PING 10.0.0.3 (10.0.0.3) 5000(5028) bytes of data. 5008 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=94.5 ms 5008 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.161 ms 5008 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms 5008 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.155 ms 5008 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.130 ms ^C --- 10.0.0.3 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.092/19.012/94.526/37.757 ms mininet> h1 ping h3 -s 5000 ^CPING 10.0.0.3 (10.0.0.3) 5000(5028) bytes of data. --- 10.0.0.3 ping statistics --- 212 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 211623ms mininet> h1 ping h3 PING 10.0.0.3 (10.0.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.330 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1166 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.081 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.083 ms ^C --- 10.0.0.3 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.081/194.523/1166.459/434.663 ms, pipe 2 mininet> h1 ping h3 PING 10.0.0.3 (10.0.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=76.2 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.083 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.079 ms ^C --- 10.0.0.3 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.061/15.313/76.250/30.468 ms mininet> h1 ping h3 -s 5000 ^CPING 10.0.0.3 (10.0.0.3) 5000(5028) bytes of data. --- 10.0.0.3 ping statistics --- 42 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 41045ms -------------------------------------------------- On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Lucas Brasilino <lr...@cin.ufpe.br> wrote: > > Yup, dart. It's actually more than due to get rolled over to eel, but > it's > > waiting on me to have some time to dedicate to POX, which hasn't happened > > for a while. :) > > eel ? I was about to suggest 'eager' name :-D > > > -- > Att > Lucas Brasilino > MSc Student @ Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) / Brazil > twitter: @lucas_brasilino > -- Thanks Tim
