Thanks for getting back to me Natasha,
Natasha Gude wrote: > Hey Glen, > > First off, thanks for all of the debugging output - it really helped > in figuring out your setup. > No probs. I figure the more useful information I give you the more likely you are to be able to help with the problem. Let me correct one minor mistake in the previous e-mail. It appears that mvm-17 is on eth1 and mvm-33 is on eth4 (both via Cat6k) -- I had said they were both on eth1. > I took a look at the dump files and nox log, and I didn't see more > than a few ARP packets, but I did see a lot of cisco traffic, > presumably from the cat6k. I'm not sure if there's necessarily a > problem here, but I can tell you what it seems like the situation is > and you can let me know if NOX should be behaving differently. The ARP traffic I was referring to can be seen from packet 212 on in b.eth1.dump and packet 199 in b.eth2.dump (and similar locations in the other two). Once that first ARP request comes in they appear on the order of < 100ms :-( > Almost all of the flows seen by NOX are from the mac 00:01:63:d4:67:ca > (which I'm assuming is the 6k). Because the 6k is connected to two of > the Openflow switch's ports, NOX has record of the mac at these two > locations (eth1 and eth4, which are port numbers 0 and 3 respectively > in the NOX log file). Right now, we have a notion of a "primary" > location when a sender is connected at two different points in the > network. At any given time, a sender's primary location is the > location it most recently sent a packet from. When that location > switches, the old one is "poisoned" to force ongoing traffic to be > routed to the new location. Thus the poison dbg message you were > seeing results from the 6k sending a packet with that source mac > address through a different port on the openflow switch than which it > last sent through. What's interesting is that to begin with, a > different mac address is used by the 6k when sending traffic to > openflow's eth4 interface (00:01:63:d4:67:cb), but then when the > destination address changes to 01:00:0c:00:00:07, the source address > is always 00:01:63:d4:67:ca regardless of the openflow port it is > received on. Actually all traffic from the Cisco on eth4 is from 00:01:63:d4:67:cb. We only start seeing things listed as being from the :ca address on eth4 when NOX is running. > The second point worth noting is that all of the 6k's traffic is sent > to multicast addresses, and NOX currently treats multicast and > broadcast traffic the same, flooding a packet out every port except > for the one it came in on. If there's a more appropriate way of > dealing with this traffic, please let me know! As far as I know it should be okay to simply flood this traffic. > > So that's what seems to be the situation. Again, let me know if you > think any of the above described behavior is incorrect, or if there's > still a problem that I just couldn't deduce from the log/dump files I > looked at. Glen _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
