On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:58:14AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:53:28PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:26:48AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Open Flow 1.1 and 1.2 make use of 32 bit ports, however Open vSwtich maps
> > > them to 16 bits. Make ovs-ofputl aware of this.
> > >
> > > Also, only accept ports that fit into 16 bits for Open Flow 1.0.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au>
> >
> > This makes the acceptable port numbers a function of the protocol we
> > end up with, but the ovs-ofctl philosophy has always been that you
> > tell it what you want and it'll pick an acceptable protocol for doing
> > what you asked for. There's also an issue of some confusion over
> > whether, say, port 65535 is OFPP_NONE (OF1.0) or just an
> > undistinguished "physical" port (OF1.1). I think we can do better.
> >
> > Here's a counterproposal. What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> > --8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--
> >
> > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:49:59 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] ovs-ofctl: Accept port keywords, OF1.1 port numbers,
> > reject port number 0.
> >
> > OpenFlow 1.0 has special reserved ports in the range 0xfff8 to 0xffff.
> > OpenFlow 1.1 and later has the same ports in the range 0xfffffff8 to
> > 0xffffffff and allows the OF1.0 range to be used for ordinary ("physical")
> > switch ports. This means that, naively, the meaning of a port number in
> > the range 0xfff8 to 0xffff given on the ovs-ofctl command line depends on
> > the protocol in use. This commit implements something a little smarter:
> >
> > - Accept keyword names (e.g. LOCAL) for special reserved ports
> > everywhere that such a port can plausibly be used (previously they
> > were only accepted in some places).
> >
> > - Translate 0xfff8...0xffff to 0xfffffff8...0xffffffff for now, since
> > OF1.1+ isn't in widespread use and those particular ports aren't
> > likely to be in use in OF1.1+ anyway.
>
> I don't really like the above assumption, 0xfff8...0xffff
> are valid OF1.1+ port numbers, it seems that it would
> cause rather a surprise if they were used as non-reserved ports
> but Open vSwtich interpreted them as reserved ports.
>
> I am prepared to live with it, but I don't like it.
For now, we couldn't use those OF1.1+ port numbers anyway, because
internally OVS only supports 16-bit port numbers. Presumably some
time in the future we'll switch OVS to use 32-bit port numbers
internally, but until then I can't really see a drawback.
Would it make you happier if I added some kind of formal deprecation
notice to NEWS saying that numeric values for the reserved OpenFlow
ports won't be supported after such-and-such a date?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
