Iwamoto,
Thank you.
regards,
Diarmuid
--
*Irish by birth, located in Uganda but Munster by the grace of God.*
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 07:13, IWAMOTO Toshihiro <iwam...@valinux.co.jp>
wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 22:07:38 +0900,
> Maen Artimy wrote:
> >
> > [1 <multipart/alternative (7bit)>]
> > [1.1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> > Diarmuid,
> > I may have misunderstood your question, but the openflow does not allow
> the
> > output port to be the same as input port.
> > If you must do that then you have to use the reserved port OFPP_IN_PORT,
> > which forces the output port to be the same as the input.
>
> I don't think sending back packets is beneficial in this case.
>
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:38 AM Diarmuid O Briain <diarm...@obriain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I added the following lines to the event handler
> > >
> > > if (eth.dst == eth.src):
> > > print(f'EQUAL MACs: SRC: {eth.src} == DST: {eth.dst}')
> > > return
> > >
> > > EQUAL MACs: SRC: 00:1e:be:17:eb:9a == DST: 00:1e:be:17:eb:9a
> > > EQUAL MACs: SRC: c4:71:fe:10:fe:00 == DST: c4:71:fe:10:fe:00
> > > EQUAL MACs: SRC: 00:1e:be:17:eb:9a == DST: 00:1e:be:17:eb:9a
> > >
> > > I see lots of equal MACs but now I get no new flows added:
>
> Are these packets generated by your Netgear switch?
>
> > > ~$ curl -X GET http://198.8.8.235:8080/stats/flow/176199429686713;
> echo
> > > {"176199429686713": [{"priority": 0, "cookie": 0, "idle_timeout": 0,
> > > "hard_timeout": 0, "byte_count": 51783, "duration_sec": 319,
> > > "duration_nsec": 180000000, "packet_count": 648, "length": 80,
> "flags": 0,
> > > "actions": ["OUTPUT:CONTROLLER"], "match": {}, "table_id": 0}]}
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Diarmuid
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Irish by birth, located in Uganda but Munster by the grace of God.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 12:16, Diarmuid O Briain <diarm...@obriain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Referring to a mail I chain I started on this email group a couple of
> > >> weeks ago. The support engineer in Netgear asked me for a simple
> > >> description and how it could be replicated.
> > >>
> > >> For reference and in case anyone here is interested I attach this
> > >> description and a howto replicate.
> > >>
> > >> Essentially the Netgear switch sends a packet for each port that has
> SRC
> > >> MAC == DST MAC:
> > >>
> > >> - IN PORT: 1
> > >> - SRC_MAC: *00:1e:be:17:eb:9a*
> > >> - DST_MAC: *00:1e:be:17:eb:9a*
> > >>
> > >> This causes the simple_switch_13.py to ADD FLOW with the in port and
> the
> > >> out port the same.
> > >>
> > >> - Priority: 1
> > >> - OFPMatch(oxm_fields={*'in_port': 1*,
> 'eth_dst':'00:1e:be:17:eb:9a'})
> > >> - [OFPActionOutput(len=16,max_len=65509,*port=1*,type=0)]
> > >> - Buffer ID: 267
> > >>
> > >> Would it be safe to add a loop to drop add_flow() calls where the
> Match
> > >> port and the Action port are the same as well as the src and dst MAC
> > >> addresses? Is there any condition where that would be normal
> behaviour?
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >>
> > >> Diarmuid
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> *Irish by birth, located in Uganda but Munster by the grace of God.*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > > Ryu-devel mailing list
> > > Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
> > >
> > [1.2 <text/html; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > [2 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> >
> > [3 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ryu-devel mailing list
> > Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Ryu-devel mailing list
Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
