On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 15:03, Josh Smift <j...@bbn.com> wrote: > If they don't specify dl_type, they presumably want both (and any other > ethertype too), just like if they leave any other field blank. >
Doing constant time matching in switch silicon on this type of match is for all intents and purposes impossible (let alone the fact that the switch isn't making sure your packet is well-formed). > NB> - How about tp_src and tp_dst? What ip_proto should we assume that > you > NB> are using? > > Does it need to assume that you're using any ip_proto? > Yes, because (as above), the switch needs to figure out how to parse the packet data. If you don't tell it ip_proto, how does it know where (in the packet) to find tp_src and tp_dst in the first place? Sure, you could argue that NOX (or any other controller) should manufacture the entire set of valid flowmods if you wildcard a lower layer field, but this would definitely have to be done in the controller (not the switch), and I would argue is not a good idea - in a world of finite TCAM space, a controller author should be explicit about the space they are trying to consume. -- Nick
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
