Hi Ali, First, thanks for your quick answer.
>For your instability issue could you check that the connection between the switches and flowvisor is stable. That'll give us a better idea of >where to start looking. You can verify this by running fvctl list-datapaths and confirming that all 4 switches remain connected. If they are >always connected then you should probably capture a packet trace between flowvisor and the controllers to see what is actually going on. >This can be done with wireshark. After I created the slices as I wrote in the previous email; first I am running controller:8002, then 3 sws are not getting connected but only the sw whose dpid is added with the last flowspace entry. e.g. if the FV is configured such that fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-slice myslice1 tcp:192.168.56.1:8001 mfa fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-slice myslice2 tcp:192.168.56.1:8002 mfa fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-flowspace myflowspace1 all 1 any myslice1=7 fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-flowspace myflowspace2 00:00:00:00:00:02 3 any myslice2=7 fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-flowspace myflowspace2 00:00:00:00:00:03 3 any myslice2=7 fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-flowspace myflowspace2 00:00:00:00:00:01 3 any myslice2=7 Then only sw_dpid:::01 is connected to myslice2. I listed FV datapaths and it is showing; Connected switches: 1 : 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 2 : 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:02 3 : 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:03 4 : 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:04 So there is no connectivity problem. Also as you suggested, I traced the OF packet exchanges between the sws and the controllers, but for this case, the connection messages (Hello, Features Request, Set Config etc.) are exchanged for only connected sw_dpid:::01. Next, simultaneously, I have run controller:8001 and it got connected to all 4 sws successfully. I also saw the OF connection message exchanges via Wireshark. Here, what i understand from this result is the problem is about the way I configured FV to assign 3 sws to one slice because it does not send any connection request to all the sws but only the last one added. When I added only one FlowSpace entry like being done for myslice1 or if I just FlowSpace entries for myslice2 such that (only one sw) fvctl -f fvpasswd_file add-flowspace myflowspace2 00:00:00:00:00:01 3 any myslice2=7 Then everything seems to work as expected. >Slicing on the dpid only will be tricky because having two entire datapaths in two different slices is nearly impossible, you need some other >variable to discriminate on. I don't know what kind of virtual subnets you want to build, but have you considered slicing on IPs or even >vlans? Another alternative which is quite simple is to slice on a combination of dpids and ports. This is a good suggestion, thanks, but what I want to have is sligthly more dynamic way of slicing the network by using FlowVisor. That is why I was trying to go for fine-grained manner of slicing: by specifying dpids individually for each slice. Also I am not trying to slice the datapath entirely here. Do you have any idea that might be useful to achieve this type of slicing else I will try to follow what you suggested, vlan or IP slicing. Thanks. Mehmet Fatih Aktas On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Ali Al-Shabibi <ali.al-shab...@stanford.edu>wrote: > Hi Mehmet, > > For your instability issue could you check that the connection between the > switches and flowvisor is stable. That'll give us a better idea of where to > start looking. You can verify this by running fvctl list-datapaths and > confirming that all 4 switches remain connected. If they are always > connected then you should probably capture a packet trace between flowvisor > and the controllers to see what is actually going on. This can be done with > wireshark. > > > > > > Also, even though the flowspaces of myslice1&2 are successfully created > and all switches are getting connected successfully, FV does not send the > packet_ins to both slice switches but only to one e.g. controller:8001. > > > > So flowvisor does not do this. It will only forward control traffic to one > slice. In your case myslice1 takes precedence because it has a higher > priority and matches all dpids. > > > Overall, what i am trying to do is to slice the network into virtual > subnets, and here i explained the problems I had during doing that. What I > am doing may not be the best way, I would appreciate any help or comment. > > Slicing on the dpid only will be tricky because having two entire > datapaths in two different slices is nearly impossible, you need some other > variable to discriminate on. I don't know what kind of virtual subnets you > want to build, but have you considered slicing on IPs or even vlans? > Another alternative which is quite simple is to slice on a combination of > dpids and ports. > > Let me know if this helps. > > > Thanks for the time. > > > > Mehmet Fatih Aktas > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Ali Al-Shabibi < > ali.al-shab...@stanford.edu> wrote: > > Hi Mehmet, > > > > FlowVisor can reside anywhere really (within a reasonable latency), so > you could have it running in the mininet VM or on another machine. Just > point your mininet network to the FlowVisor. > > > > This can be done by giving the --controller remote option to mininet. > That said, I'd be interested to know what problems you had installing > FlowVisor. > > > > > > > > Is there any simple tutorial or any resource that can help me to get > on board quickly ? > > > > Unfortunately not yet, but I will be putting the tutorials up online > officially soon, although they may not be very different to the ones you > have found yet. > > > > Hope this helps! > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Mehmet Fatih Aktas > > > _______________________________________________ > > > openflow-discuss mailing list > > > openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu > > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
