Ravi, My thoughts on north bound API is, an approach similar to Device Intermediate Representation in extensibility WG. We should provide an extensible framework for this API. In my opinion, instead of mandating the API, controller should be able to express itself using a model (let's call it Controller Functional Representation). I think this approach will make the device to controller, application to controller interaction look similar from design perspective.
Regards, --Mohnish From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 8:47 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Northboundapi] Controller agnostic applications Hello, Since OF 1.1 doesn't mandate standard set of api's to be exported by the controller, I believe each application written is specific to a controller. For networking centric applications aka flow-monitoring, application which import routes from BGP/OSPF into OF doesn't fall into the category of controller specific. If I had to provide a glue-logic to make apps controller agnostic at least for open-source controllers(to start with) that are available, would it be possible to do it? Since each controller uses different implementation (Nox- C++, Python), (Trema - C, Ruby), (Beacon - Java) would it make sense to use IDL's as a glue logic? Inputs appreciated. Thanks Ravi
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
