On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 01:38:55PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:25:31AM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > Documentation/faq/openflow.rst | 8 ++++++++ > >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > >> > b/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > >> > index 376e64eb4482..214e38e6a9aa 100644 > >> > --- a/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > >> > +++ b/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > >> > @@ -462,6 +462,14 @@ What's going on? > >> > messages and will send an error response if any other value of this > >> > field > >> > is included in a "packet-out" or a "flow mod" sent by a controller. > >> > > >> > + Packet buffers have limited usefulness in any case. Table-miss > >> > packet-in > >> > + messages most commonly pass the first packet in a microflow to the > >> > OpenFlow > >> > + controller, which then sets up an OpenFlow flow that handles > >> > remaining > >> > + traffic in the microflow without further controller intervention. > >> > In such > >> > + a case, the packet that initiates the microflow is usually small, > >> > which > >> > + means that the switch sends the entire packet to the controller and > >> > the > >> > + buffer only saves a small number of bytes in the reverse direction. > >> > + > >> I can see that In case of TCP, the packet buffer is usually small > >> (except DOS). But > >> it is not clear to me that why this is true in general. May be you > >> mean this is what we > >> have observed in practice? > > > > Yes. > > > > Here's a version that is slightly reworded: > > > > --8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8-- > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:25:38 -0700 > > Subject: [PATCH] faq: Expand on answer about packet buffering removal. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > > --- > > Documentation/faq/openflow.rst | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst b/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > > index 376e64eb4482..d21bb4459395 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/faq/openflow.rst > > @@ -462,6 +462,15 @@ What's going on? > > messages and will send an error response if any other value of this > > field > > is included in a "packet-out" or a "flow mod" sent by a controller. > > > > + Packet buffers have limited usefulness in any case. Table-miss > > packet-in > > + messages most commonly pass the first packet in a microflow to the > > OpenFlow > > + controller, which then sets up an OpenFlow flow that handles remaining > > + traffic in the microflow without further controller intervention. In > > such > > + a case, the packet that initiates the microflow is in practice usually > > + small (certainly for TCP), which means that the switch sends the entire > > + packet to the controller and the buffer only saves a small number of > > bytes > > + in the reverse direction. > > + > > Q: How does OVS divide flows among buckets in an OpenFlow "select" group? > > > > A: In Open vSwitch 2.3 and earlier, Open vSwitch used the destination > > -- > > 2.10.2 > > > > Thanks for the revision. > > Acked-by: Andy Zhou <[email protected]>
Thanks, applied to master. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
