On Mar 9, 2010, at 09:20 , Martin Casado wrote: > Teemu Koponen wrote: >> On Mar 8, 2010, at 21:32 , kk yap wrote: >> >> >>> I might be wrong, but from my understanding there is nothing in >>> OpenFlow that dictates reliable execution of commands received. >>> >> >> btw; I can't resist and comment this by saying that unreliable (silently >> dropped) control plane operations of OF complicate development of any >> controller quite a bit. To this date, I haven't heard a valid reason why >> the protocol semantics should be such for any of the OF messages. No, >> overload conditions are not such a reason. >> > I absolutely agree, this needs to be fixed in the OpenFlow specification. > Else, it is near impossible to build scalable controllers who maintain > consistent state. The only caveats to consider would be for packet ins (we > can maintain the best effort delivery model for datagram forwarding) and > potentially flow expirations due to inactivity timers.
Packet-ins definitely belong to the data plane and can be reliable but flow expirations are definitely a part of control plane operations which should be reliable. _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
