Hi Ali and experts: *I installed Flowvisor from source code following this website's instruction --http://www.forwardingplane.net/2013/07/building-flowvisor-on-centos-6-quick-and-dirty/ <http://www.forwardingplane.net/2013/07/building-flowvisor-on-centos-6-quick-and-dirty/>* *So maybe there's no mininet problem?* But still, I took your advices to change the DPIDs of NEC switches to become 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:09 and 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:10 and made a little changes of the environment. Therefore, my test environment have 2 NEC PF5240 switches and no Cisco WRT54GC switches now. And of course, 1 Routeflow and 1 Flowvisor.
After starting all the components and running for a while, the similar problems still came out. At the beginning, they went well. After a period of time, it became unstable to be disconnected.....reconnected.....connected......disconnected repeatedly. Here are some examples of logs...... *ERROR Messages* 1. flowvisor: ERROR classifier-dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:09 : STARVING: handling event took 291ms: org.flowvisor.events.FVIOEvent@67fa7ca8 -> (this showed a lot) 2. flowvisor: ERROR slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:09 : got unknown error; tearing down and reconnecting: java.nio.BufferOverflowException 3. flowvisor: ERROR classifier-dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:10 : STARVING: handling event took 151ms: org.flowvisor.events.FVIOEvent@2b7dc185 -> (this showed a lot) 4. flowvisor: ERROR slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:10 : got unknown error; tearing down and reconnecting: java.nio.BufferOverflowException *WARNING Messages* 1. flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:09 : dropping msg: controller not connected: ofmsg:v=1;t=STATS_REPLY;l=1068;x=10379;st=DESC 2. flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:10 : dropping msg: controller not connected: ofmsg:v=1;t=STATS_REPLY;l=1068;x=10376;st=DESC 3. flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:09 : Verifying Slice is not over its flow rule limit -> (this showed a lot) 4. flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:10 : Verifying Slice is not over its flow rule limit -> (this showed a lot) On the other hand, I used the wireshark in Flowvisor to sniff the connections and got the packet.txt as the following link. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1gbh8racsl74o14/packet.txt Sorry, I ran the system for a while so the file size is large. Please forgive me.....>< Thank you for your help. This really drives me crazy......orz -- Best Regards, Sylar Shen 2014-02-27 3:28 GMT+08:00 Ali Al-Shabibi <ali.al-shab...@stanford.edu>: > Hi Sylar, > > First thing that is perhaps a detail but it seems that the DPIDs your > switches have are from mininet (00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01, > 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:04) although you may have set the dpid in the NEC and > Cisco switch. But just in case you have a mininet running somewhere that is > creating havoc in your setup. > > Another thing, that is odd is the BufferUnderflowException which is > usually caused when we read from the input buffer to FV with a too large > length value. Could you please sniff the connection between the RouteFlow > and FlowVisor and send the pcap? > > Cheers. > > -- > Ali > > On 26 Feb 2014, at 06:44, Sylar Shen <kimul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear experts: > > I have a simple test environment in a LAN which contains... > > Controller(Routeflow) * 1 > > Flowvisor(CentOS 6.5, version 1.4) * 1 > > NEC PF5240 openflow switch *1 > > Cisco WRT54GC openflow switch *1 > > > > Flowvisor manages the two openflow switches and have a slice named > "routelfow" for Routeflow. > > The flowspace(the name is myflowspace) for Routeflow has no constraints > which means Routeflow can use any switch and the rule is like..... > > {"force-enqueue": -1, "name": "myflowspace", "slice-action": > [{"slice-name": "routeflow", "permission": 7}], "queues": [], "priority": > 1, "dpid": "all_dpids", "id": 10, "match": {"wildcards": 4194303}} > > > > After setting up the environment and running, everything seemed to be OK. > > The Routeflow worked fine and the Flowvisor was OK as well. > > But....after maybe 3 minutes later, the connections started to be > unstable. > > Therefore, I got many error and warning information that came from the > NEC switch constantly. > > And a lot of warning information from both switches. > > Here are some examples from the NEC switch.... > > Error log > > 1. flowvisor: ERROR classifier-dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 : STARVING: > handling event took 26ms: org.flowvisor.events.FVIOEvent@4f853093 > > 2. flowvisor: ERROR slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 : > STARVING: handling event took 24ms: org.flowvisor.events.FVIOEvent@638d0d04 > > 3. flowvisor: ERROR slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 : got > unknown error; tearing down and reconnecting: > java.nio.BufferUnderflowException > > Warning log > > 1. flowvisor: WARN none : End of LLDPDU is missing <-- (This showed a > lot...) > > 2. flowvisor: WARN classifier-dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 : inserting > drop (hard=0,idle=1) rule for > FlowEntry[dpid=[all_dpids],ruleMatch=[OFMatch[]],actionsList=[Slice:routeflow=7],id=[10],priority=[1],] > > 3. flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:01 : > flowrewriteDB: tried to remove non-existent flow FVFlowRemoved > [match=OFMatch[in_port=1,dl_dst=02:a1:a1:a1:a1:a1,dl_src=00:17:5a:ea:cc:6b,dl_type=0x800,dl_vlan=0xffff,dl_vpcp=0,nw_dst=20.0.0.2,nw_src=20.0.0.1,nw_proto=6,nw_tos=48,tp_dst=42930,tp_src=179]] > > > > Here are the warning information that came from both switches. > > Both NEC switch and Cisco WRT switch show this warning... > > flowvisor: WARN slicer_routeflow_dpid=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:04 : > Verifying Slice is not over its flow rule limit > > > > However, if I removed Flowvisor and let the switches connect to > Routeflow directly, everything was back to normal and worked fine. > > I've tried everything I can imagine, for example, make Routeflow send > hello message from 1 second to 10 seconds, but still, the error and warning > messages kept showing. > > Hope someone who could help me with this problem. I will appreciate it. > > Thank you very very much....^^ > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Sylar Shen > > _______________________________________________ > > openflow-discuss mailing list > > openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss > > -- Best Regards, Sylar Shen
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
