On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:38, Aanova syndhai <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking that since open Vswitch uses 'flow_mode' struct, the > controller applications should also play around with this struct. The > controller applications sholuld put some values in "flow_mod *fm" and send > it back to the switch. The switch then receive this struct as argument of > add_flow() and add the flow in his flow table. > Now problem is that most of the controller applications, which I have seen, > play around with struct "struct ofp_flow_mod *ofm" instead of "struct > flow_mod".
What exactly do you perceive the benefit to be of sending the vswitch-specific struct through some out-of-band channel rather than using the standard openflow messages on the openflow control channel? One point (among many) of a standard protocol is that controllers don't have to care about the internal data structures of the switch implementation - controllers use the standard messages and thus can talk to a variety of switch implementations. To the extent that switches support more than openflow defines, they are free to define extensions (which has been done in the case of OVS for some things). -- Nick _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
