To'ed Anil We are using FRM and so as we discussed in NetVirt meeting, if we could get the order of
a. Group followed by Flows b. Flows followed by PacketOut's that will use such Flows sorted out in FRM transparent to NetVirt, that would be great. You can see in the link below that Group 150003 is available in the group, but Flows using that group should be available in Table 20, Table 21 and Table 36. You can see from the link that Table 20, Table 21 does not have the flow using that group but only Table 36 has it: https://logs.opendaylight.org/releng/jenkins092/netvirt-csit-1node-openstack-newton-upstream-transparent-carbon/420/archives/log.html.gz#s1-s4-t15-k9-k1-k2-k1-k15-k4 -- Thanks, Vivek -----Original Message----- From: Kochba, Alon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:02 PM To: Jozef Bacigál <[email protected]>; Jamo Luhrsen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; N Vivekanandan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] Bug 8025 - missing method to use barrier when installing rules and giving packet_out +netvirt-dev Vivek, you mentioned seeing problems with groupmod + flowmod order - do you know if we are using FRS or FRM? It seems openflowplugin does supposedly have support for this with barrier in between when using FRS. Jozef what would be the API to maintain order between these writes, is there some assumption on how they are installed? --alon -----Original Message----- From: Jozef Bacigál [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017 13:08 To: Kochba, Alon <[email protected]>; Jamo Luhrsen <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] Bug 8025 - missing method to use barrier when installing rules and giving packet_out Hi Alon, Yes you right config is unpredictable. Still you can use SalFlowService/SalGroupService instead of config and you got the requested functionality. But if you use config to put flow mods even barrier, it can later on device than packet out. The second case (group mod + flow mod) it is well working with FRS instead of FRM, because FRS sending barrier when needed. Jozef -----Original Message----- From: Kochba, Alon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:56 AM To: Jozef Bacigál <[email protected]>; Jamo Luhrsen <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] Bug 8025 - missing method to use barrier when installing rules and giving packet_out Hi Jozef, Thanks for the reply. We understand we can use statistics for this today - but we want to avoid that as relying on statistics does not scale very well. We would like openflowplugin to expose an API that takes advantage of the barrier feature as defined in the openflow spec (flow_mod + barrier + packet out, or group_mod + barrier + flow_mod). --alon -----Original Message----- From: Jozef Bacigál [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017 10:47 To: Jamo Luhrsen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kochba, Alon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [openflowplugin-dev] Bug 8025 - missing method to use barrier when installing rules and giving packet_out Hi Jamo, If I got it, you need to install two flows, and then send a packet in this order. So only solution right now, quite easy is, to push the flows into configuration and wait for statistics to be sure flow are installed and then and only then send the packet. You don't need to run statistics periodically, there is an direct RPC statistics gathering, you can run it to ensure the flows are installed. Jozef -----Original Message----- From: Jamo Luhrsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:42 PM To: [email protected]; Kochba, Alon <[email protected]> Subject: [openflowplugin-dev] Bug 8025 - missing method to use barrier when installing rules and giving packet_out Hi OFP, I just raised a bug/enhancement-request: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8025 Alon had sent an initial inquiry (see bug) about this, but we didn't hear back. Hoping that it can get some visibility with OFP at some point. The general problem for netvirt which consumes the plugin is that we are running in to race conditions which are ugly (hard to reproduce, hard to debug) and will be painful for end users when they hit them. The thinking is that with this ability exposed, we can eliminate the races in a fundamental way provided by the openflow protocol. Thanks, JamO _______________________________________________ openflowplugin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev _______________________________________________ openflowplugin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev
