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 > here. > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > 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. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
