> On Oct 14, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jamo Luhrsen <jluhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/13/2016 09:50 PM, Luis Gomez wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> We are getting close to Boron SR1 so I think it makes sense to review the 2 >> blocking issues we have: >> >> >> 1) https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6575 >> >> Summary: >> >> l2switch does not work well when mininet is disconnected and connected with >> no time in-between. >> >> Description: >> >> This is kind of old issue, since the He->Li migration the l2switch has >> experienced random issues in the system test: >> >> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/l2switch/job/l2switch-csit-1node-switch-only-boron/ >> >> Same test passes fine in Beryllium as you can see below: >> >> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/l2switch/job/l2switch-csit-1node-switch-only-beryllium/ >> >> The last discovery (just before Boron release) was that giving more time >> between stop mininet and start mininet made the suite pass. >> >> Criticality: >> >> Although this was a clear regression in l2switch test (Be->B), this bug was >> not initially marked as blocker because it was not trivial to reproduce >> (e.g. switch connection flap). >> >> Risk of not fixing: >> >> l2switch and other similar applications relying on ofplugin may not work >> well when switch connection flaps. > > > Luis, not that you have any spare cycles, but I wonder how reproducible this > issue would > be in the case of an entire network being unreachable for some period and > then all reconnecting > back at once. A test with iptables blocking 6633 on the controller until all > nodes are gone > from operational then flushing the rule would simulate that. > > This seems like a somewhat valid real world scenario which might make the bug > more important > to fix.
So far it is only l2switch application (loop removal and address tracker to be more precise) that has issues with this switch quick disconnect-reconnect. I am not sure what you are asking here, trying with other OF apps? > > just a thought. > > JamO > > >> 2) https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6917 >> >> Summary: >> >> Flow matching function (operational flow reconciliation) is not stable. >> >> Description: >> >> I discovered this issue doing some random flow push test in my laptop using >> POSTMAN: adding and deleting the same flow few times produced an alien ID in >> the operational flow. >> After that I have created a test that does exactly that: add flow, verify >> operational ID, delete flow, sleep 5s, repeat. With these simple steps the >> issue shows consistently for Boron (new test): >> >> https://logs.opendaylight.org/releng/jenkins092/openflowplugin-csit-1node-flow-services-only-boron/758/archives/log.html.gz >> >> But not in Beryllium: >> >> https://logs.opendaylight.org/releng/jenkins092/openflowplugin-csit-1node-flow-services-only-beryllium/1854/archives/log.html.gz >> >> Criticality: >> >> Besides the test regression, I think there are applications in ODL relying >> on operational flow ID that would be negatively impacted by this bug. >> >> Risk of not fixing: >> >> OF applications relying on operational flow ID (e.g. to confirm flows) can >> sporadically fail. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> L2switch-dev mailing list >> L2switch-dev@lists.opendaylight.org >> <mailto:L2switch-dev@lists.opendaylight.org> >> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/l2switch-dev >> <https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/l2switch-dev>
_______________________________________________ L2switch-dev mailing list L2switch-dev@lists.opendaylight.org https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/l2switch-dev
