Hi Wei, Please see inline.
Best regards! -------------- Yuchi Chen On 2014-02-18, 15:15, "meng.wei2" <[email protected]> wrote: >[Wei] I agree. Congestion might hardly occur in normal network traffic. >Anyway, the rate of creating new sessions is a key performance indexes of >per apparatus under traditional routing scenario. > My proposal is that we should consider how to maintain existing >performance >per apparatus (switch/router) while finding a way to unify IPv6 transition > >technologies. > i.e. reasonable number of controllers in network... [yuchi] Yes, thanks for your suggestion. The scenario of using several controller is mentioned (e.g., "Controller can be a single device or a cluster of devices" in Bullet 3 of Terminology Section). I think this scenario can be discussed in more detail in the text. >> [yuchi] The logging of a switch can be done by its associated >> controller. The controller is responsible for >> maintaining all states that is related to the switch, such as NAT44 >> state and flow table (if needed). > >[Wei]If so, does a switch need to send its NAT44 sessions(or flow tables) >to >the controller? > [yuchi] NAT44 process can be interpreted into actions and recorded in the flow table. Hence I think switch does not have to maintain NAT44 session state (if this is what you mean). On the other hand, controller can establish related states according to the inital packet of each flow, which is what switch needs to send to controller. If controller needs the information of the flow table maintained by switch, it can ask switch to send that. Hence switch is not required to send its flow table to controller by default. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
