Hi Su, The problem here is that you have overlapping flowspace definitions which allow one slice to 'hijack' another slices traffic. One way to avoid this situation is to have bob's controller proactively install a rule for that particular flowspace if possible. Overlapping flowspaces are very difficult to handle as flowvisor cannot determine to which slice traffic belongs in and more importantly once rules are pushed to the switch they could starve another slice. If at all possible, try to keep your flowspace definitions as disjoint as possible.
-- Ali Al-Shabibi (sent from handheld) On 6 mai 2013, at 06:53, "Su" <sujz.b...@qq.com> wrote: > Hi, All > > Supporse two Flowspace rules exists in flowvisor: > > Rule1: dpid=9 x=1, y=2, z=3, priority=10 Slice:Bob=4 > Rule2: dpid=9 x=1, y=2 priority=1 Slice:Alice=4 > > In which x,y and z are three different match fields, Now a Packet_In message > with x=1,y=2,z=4 comes, FlowVisor will direct it to Alice's controller, > furthermore, Alice's controller send a FlowMod message not specifying field z > and install a FlowEntry in switch(dpid=9). Once a new flow with x=1,y=2,z=3 > which should belongs to Bob comes, the switch will forward it according to > the previously installed flowentry(x=1,y=2,z=*), i.e. Slice Alice controls > flows of slice Bob, so How to implement flow isolation in this situation? > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
