Francisco, On SFC101 setup, you will be using sfc_agent and not an actual OVS. When you configure a ServiceFunctionClassifier, you will a attach it to one or more SFFs which in turn are handled by sfc_agent. The sfc_agent will configure iptable rules to forward the traffic to the first SFF of the chain by IP address.
If you actually want to use OVS, SFC103 demo is a better reference. The setup you describe should be supported. Again, remember to hit Reply All to include this conversation in the sfc-dev mailing list where more people might be able to help ;) Jaime. On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 12:25 +0100, Martinez Alvarez Guido Francisco wrote: > No problem , I attach the original file i sent to the sfc-list to > this > email, I am working using the NetfilterQueue classifier in this > example, however I am still not clear on what configuration will be > necessary to map a classifier to an OVS, is it possible to map the > ingress classifier, the egress classifier and the SFF itself to a > single instance of an OVS switch which will be connected to the SFs? > > > Very kind regards > > > Guido > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:36:11 +0100 > Jaime Caamaño Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, I missed the initial attachment you provided. > > > > A demo setup like SF101 is no longer supported in Carbon, so it > > might > > not work. I suggest using SF103. > > > > What you could try though to get SF101 setup working, is using > > 6633 > > as > > the port for the SF data plane locater, as that seems to be > > hardcoded > > in some parts on sfc_agent. > > > > Aditionaly, in SF101, OVS is not used at all. sfc_agent provides > > the > > SFF. > > > > I also recommend you to keep the conversation within the sfc-dev > > mailing list as others might be able to help too. > > > > BR > > Jaime. > > > > On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 10:09 +0100, Martinez Alvarez Guido > > Francisco > > wrote: > > > Thanks so much for your reply Jaime, I attached to this email > > > the > > > results from the ovs-ofctl snoop bridge command, the two images > > > belong > > > to the same switch's flows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:03:22 +0100 > > > Jaime Caamaño Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello > > > > > > > > Never used it so I am not in the best position to help you. But > > > > in > > > > the > > > > meantime, could you provide the arguments used for the > > > > sff_client, > > > > it's > > > > output and the flow output of the SFF after the attempt? > > > > > > > > BR > > > > Jaime. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 15:42 +0100, Martinez Alvarez Guido > > > > Francisco > > > > wrote: > > > > > Good day, I am using Opendaylight Carbon v. 0.6.1 to setup a > > > > > topology > > > > > following the guidelines from SFC101. I am successful at > > > > > configuring > > > > > the elements as I am not getting errors at the sfc_agent > > > > > while > > > > > creating the SFs, SFFs and path using the sfc-ui in ODL. I > > > > > can > > > > > even > > > > > check that the Path has been installed at the OVS(please > > > > > refer > > > > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > attached file that shows in detail all the configuration > > > > > steps > > > > > and > > > > > testing I have done). > > > > > > > > > > The problem I am having is that when I am using the > > > > > sff_client.py > > > > > script, I dont get any reply from the SFF, could you please > > > > > provide > > > > > me > > > > > any hint regarding this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks so much in advance > > > > > > > > > > Kind REgards > > > > > > > > > > Guido Martinez > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > sfc-dev mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
