I think ports can go from 1 to OFPP_MAX inclusive, and the mistake is in the comment on page 88 (should be <= OFPP_MAX).
Every xxx_MAX constant in OpenFlow refers to the last usable id (OFPP_MAX, OFPG_MAX, OFPM_MAX, OFPTT_MAX, ...). In most cases the structs explicitly say so. Ports are only special, because there the numbering starts from 1, which makes the total number equal to the last usable id. Zoltan. >-----Original Message----- >From: openflow-discuss-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:openflow- >discuss-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Ben Pfaff >Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:54 AM >To: Bertrand Bonnefoy-Claudet >Cc: openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu >Subject: Re: [openflow-discuss] Port numbering and OFPP_MAX > >On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:36:57PM -0500, Bertrand Bonnefoy-Claudet wrote: >> Here is a minor point in the OpenFlow 1.3.1 specification (and most >> previous versions) that I would like to clarify. >> >> Page 42 says that ports are numbered starting from 1 and that OFPP_MAX >> is the maximum number of "normal" ports a switch can have. >> >> Page 88, on the other hand, says that a valid physical port should >> have a number "< OFPP_MAX". >> >> So, to my understanding, page 42 implies OFPP_MAX is a valid port >> whereas page 88 implies the contrary. > >This sounds like a mistake. I imagine that it arose because the earliest >versions of OpenFlow numbered ports starting from 0. The intent is that port >numbers are greater than 0 and less than OFPP_MAX. >_______________________________________________ >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
