Yes, I was using some poetic license in saying that we lost; that flag was put
in there as a sort of compromise for those of us not in favor of always
enforcing that behavior. If you're really interested, you can see some of the
discussion starting here:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/openflow-dev/2008-April/000133.html
--Justin
On Feb 21, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Romain Lenglet wrote:
> Hi,
> I thought that accepting (or not) overlapping flows at the same priority was
> up to the controller?
> Isn't that what the check_overlap flag is for in flow_mod messages?
> --
> Romain Lenglet
>
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 16:00, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
>> I would expect so. One use that people have brought in the past is that you
>> could setup backup routes at a lower priority, with the higher ones timing
>> out or being forcibly removed. I don't know how useful that actually is, but
>> people have discussed doingg that before with OpenFlow.
>>
>> In general, Ben and I have been fairly negative in the OpenFlow discussions
>> about putting in "sanity" checks at flow insertion time due to the
>> complexity and expense of enforcing them. There was quite a lengthy
>> discussion a year or so back about preventing users from being able to put
>> overlapping flows at the same priority--we lost that one. :-)
>>
>> --Justin
>>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Derek Cormier wrote:
>>
>>> I expected that since the flow with the lower priority will never be
>>> matched over the higher one, it has no purpose and would not be added.
>>>
>>> Hmm, on second glance, the protocol says that if you add an identical flow
>>> that also has the same priority then the flow will just be replaced.
>>> But, I don't think it says anything about this case. Sorry, I should have
>>> confirmed that before posting.
>>>
>>> That said, do you think these identical flows should be allowed?
>>>
>>> - Derek
>>>
>>> On 02/22/2011 03:43 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>>>> I would expect that you can. What did you expect? What did you see? It's
>>>> not clear from this output if it's working or not, since neither couunter
>>>> shows a value. Are you running traffic?
>>>>
>>>> --Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Derek Cormier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should I be able to add two identical wildcarded flows with different
>>>>> priorities? I was talking with KK and he thinks this might be a bug. I
>>>>> always assumed this was just the way it works. Here is my ovs-ofctl flow
>>>>> dump:
>>>>>
>>>>> cookie=0x0, duration=94.608s, table_id=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0,
>>>>> priority=5,dl_type=0x0005 actions=drop
>>>>> cookie=0x0, duration=98.109s, table_id=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0,
>>>>> priority=1,dl_type=0x0005 actions=drop
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - Derek
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dev mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
