So what happens when you change the priority? --Justin
On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:26 PM, selen jia <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > I am looking at the code of openvswitch where to compare rules and packet we > have used memcmp function which compare flow structure of packet and rule, > and so only the more exact rule should match the packet. > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: > The specificity of the flow doesn't matter; feel free to check the OpenFlow > 1.0 spec if you'd like. > > --Justin > > > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:09 PM, selen jia <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But icmp rule is more exact and has icmp_type=0 icmp_code=0 and nw_proto=1 >> field as well. So i think all these rule parametres should match against >> packet fields.and icmp rule should match to the icmp(0,0) packet and not >> rule containing just dl_type=0x0800(ip) parameter. >> >> in ovs code we use memcmp(flow,packet_flow) to determine rule matching the >> packet, so i still believe icmp rule should match the packet and not ip rule >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Adding back the discuss@ mailing list.] >> >> If there are overlapping rules at the same priority, a switch is free to >> choose whichever one it wants. In the example you gave, an ICMP (0,0) >> packet would match both rules, since it is both IP and has the correct ICMP >> type and code. If you ran a ping, the echo requests and replies would only >> match the IP rule, since it has different ICMP types. If you want your >> special ICMP packets to consistently match the right rule you need to raise >> its priority relative to the IP rule. >> >> --Justin >> >> >> On Apr 6, 2012, at 2:17 AM, selen jia wrote: >> >> > That means during add-flow in flow table, rules can be added in any >> > order,there is no defined way how rule is added to flow table. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I think you need to disambiguate those rules by using a priority. >> > OpenFlow doesn't distinguish based on which rule is more specific, so >> > switch behavior is undefined in those situations. >> > >> > As described in the ovs-ofctl man page, you can use "check_overlap" to see >> > whether this situation will occur at flow insertion time. The controller >> > may have a similar flag you can set. >> > >> > --Justin >> > >> > >> > On Apr 6, 2012, at 1:42 AM, selen jia wrote: >> > >> > > hi, >> > > im using openvswitch 1.2.2 and setting controller ptcp:6633 >> > > >> > > now from controller i add following flows >> > > 1. ovs-ofctl add-flow tcp:15.1.2.3 "ip actions=output:2" >> > > 2. ovs-ofctl add-flow tcp: 15:1.2.3 "icmp icmp_type=0 icmp_code=0 >> > > actions=output:2" >> > > >> > > Now when i send packet with icmp type=0 and icmp code=0 , >> > > packet matches rule 1) with ip actions=2 and not with second rule icmp >> > > icmp_type=0 and icmp_code=0 >> > > >> > > although rule 2 was exact match rule for packet.. >> > > >> > > >> > > How ever when i add these two flows from switch ,packet matches icmp >> > > rule only. >> > > >> > > why is switch behaving this way with random rule insertion and matching? >> > > also rule insertion order is different form switch and controller? >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > discuss mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > >> > >> >> >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
