Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-haleplidis-forces-openflow-lib-00
"Haleplidis Evangelos" <ehalep@gmail.com> Wed, 20 June 2012 14:14 UTC
Return-Path: <ehalep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18B221F8759 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2TTC4pd2jfP for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF44021F86D1 for <forces@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werb13 with SMTP id b13so6200355wer.31 for <forces@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=XELtKnmtpaLsPGJrKjv+EmvRS18gZ3m9DZ2ef9zEBl0=; b=EJctsJhwaV5kvtfstbsHQa6ODhWxv32PFooor/3Y9CQLIxBPenGtsIMQeSuI8r8xbs q0VL+EtdgArwW8Grju89y6BBmBj38ym5WdvMpTfsvFnukijQOSxVll4Ho8fTZB1hLbYJ +uPm8AjNSzjm8rRV3sGaXwKZPbBu7sgQ+y2eKVJN/wPc+cTAm9WAgMzMptsyePZlTwyL ki463pAP/8qQ9DUtmy7ka469wBSxA79SHf+F58JQAB5BfNSKvoHnTyb05/2RHsXrvw/L toUfZBIrx+kn0l5Pna7ulCvsBCiA8cUtcdNlQq5ydhWnXzw9f/AwDW07bK9jAlb+5Js4 tMag==
Received: by 10.180.102.136 with SMTP id fo8mr6360897wib.19.1340201691855; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EhalepXPS (ppp079166011173.dsl.hol.gr. [79.166.11.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d3sm74631258wiz.9.2012.06.20.07.14.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Haleplidis Evangelos <ehalep@gmail.com>
To: 'David Meyer' <dmm@1-4-5.net>, forces@ietf.org
References: <CAHiKxWgHzbhrDCb9=d_z+k5nZxutBo4VkLdrGLGm1j1h29NCTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHiKxWgHzbhrDCb9=d_z+k5nZxutBo4VkLdrGLGm1j1h29NCTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:14:45 +0300
Message-ID: <00b501cd4eef$0c6d6aa0$25483fe0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac06nxM0hIc/S7aHTbGmAq/Rp2ZmxQR6G1nQ
Content-Language: el
Cc: sdnp@lucidvision.com
Subject: Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-haleplidis-forces-openflow-lib-00
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:14:54 -0000
Greetings, All your internal comments will be addressed in the second draft which we hope to submit soon. Thank you very much. Some responses from your internal questions: 5.1.4. Events Three events have been specified regarding the ports. The first event will be triggered when a new port is added to the switch, the second when a port has been removed from the switch and the third when a port has been modified dmm> and what does ForCES do with these? [EH] OpenFlow defines a port status message when a port has been changed. These are three events to reflect that. ---------- The LFB is expected to receive all types of Ethernet packets through a group input named Input Port, either from a OFPortLFB or a OFFlowTableLFB, along with metadata. The metadata will contain only dmm> do you mean OpenFlow "group" here? If so, why does the LFB dmm> receive packets this way, that is, why are groups involved here? [EH] No, this is related to the ForCES model (RFC 5812). An output group, is used to model the case where a flow of similar packets with an identical set of permitted metadata needs to be split into multiple paths. An output group consists of a number of outputs, called the output instances of the group, where all output instances share the same frame (packet) and metadata emission definitions. Each output instance can connect to a different downstream LFB, just as if they were separate singleton outputs. Same applies to input group. ----------- 5.2.4. Events One event have been defined regarding the Flow Table. The event will be triggered when a flow is deleted from the Flow Table whether due to the idle timeout, or to the hard timeout or a flow was deleted by the controller. dmm> how about flow added? [EH] I did not find such an event in the OF1.1 spec, and I don't think that it would be a good idea to include one. Imho, the best way for the flow added is when you add a Flow Entry to get a response that your request was successful. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of David Meyer > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:48 PM > To: forces@ietf.org > Cc: sdnp@lucidvision.com > Subject: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-haleplidis-forces- > openflow-lib-00 > > Great start folks. A few inital comments. General > comments here then search for dmm> in-line in the attached... > > Meta-comment: The document is perhaps overly perscriptive > with respect to how different functionality is *implemented*. > See for example the description of Apply Actions in section > 5.2.1, which is described in terms of which data structures > implement the functionality. You can see this again in the > description of FlowEntries in section 5.2.2. Other high level > comments: > > > (i). 1.3 would be a better spec to target. I > understand that 1.3 might not have been around > when you started this work but it seems that 1.3 > will be the post 1.0 stable version (eventually). > > (ii). The modeling is in some places a little > inaccurate (see my comments in-line), and perhaps > a bit more complicated than necessary. > > (iii). The figures (e.g., Figure 2) are complicated and > could use text explaining packet flow (and what > the labels are) > > (iv). When talking about matching, it would be good to > show explicitly how OXM match behavior is > emulated. See the discussion of OFFlowTableLFB in > section 5.2.1. > > (v). The discussion of groups in section 5.{2,3}.1 seems > to indicate that packets can come back to the OF > "pipeline" from a group; is that the intent (see > my coments in-line on this). > > > > Again, thnx for doing this work. > > --dmm > > -
- [forces] a few initial comments on draft-haleplid… David Meyer
- Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-hale… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-hale… David Meyer
- Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-hale… Haleplidis Evangelos
- Re: [forces] [Sdnp] a few initial comments on dra… Zoltán Lajos Kis
- Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-hale… David Meyer
- Re: [forces] [Sdnp] a few initial comments on dra… Haleplidis Evangelos
- Re: [forces] [Sdnp] a few initial comments on dra… Zoltán Lajos Kis
- Re: [forces] [Sdnp] a few initial comments on dra… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [forces] [Sdnp] a few initial comments on dra… Zoltán Lajos Kis
- Re: [forces] a few initial comments on draft-hale… Haleplidis Evangelos