On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 05:22:07AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > >> > Does the above satisfy your requirement? Or can you elaborate on what > >> > you need? > >> > >> As I always say, I want less code in the code for stopgap vendor stuff. > > > > I see. If only nx role parser is needed, the above I'm proposing might be > > overkill. > > I think that there are some other switch-to-controller NX messages (we > haven't implemented yet) but they are still minor. You proposal code > is cleaner but I'm not convinced that handling NX* in the same way as > OFP messages (as the first class citizen) is the right thing to do.
Understood. So let's not generalize it until we found more switch-to-controller NX messages were needed. -- yamahata ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Ryu-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
