[ovs-dev] [PATCH] openflow: Add OFPC_PORT_BLOCKED to ofp_capabilities
Ben Pfaff
blp at ovn.org
Sat Nov 26 20:05:58 UTC 2016
I'd use the dev list to ask development questions. A new thread is
probably better.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 03:08:57AM -0500, Ajinkya D Kadam wrote:
> In case I need some clarifications should I ask it on this thread or create
> a new thread on discuss mailing list ?
> ᐧ
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Ajinkya D Kadam <ajinkya.kadam at nyu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for your valuable input.
> >
> > I will work in this direction.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:35:29AM -0500, Ajinkya D Kadam wrote:
> >> > This patch adds OFPC_PORT_BLOCKED capability to switch features which
> >> > indicates that protocols outside of OpenFLow, such as Spanning Tree
> >> (802.1D)
> >> > will detect topology loops and block ports to prevent packet loops.
> >> >
> >> > If this bit is not set, then its the responsibility of the controller to
> >> > implement a
> >> > mechanism to prevent packet loops.
> >> >
> >> > CC: Ben Pfaff blp at ovn.org
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ajinkya Kadam <ajinkya.kadam at nyu.edu>
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > include/openflow/openflow-common.h | 3 ++-
> >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/include/openflow/openflow-common.h
> >> > b/include/openflow/openflow-common.h
> >> > index 7b619a9..492bd65 100644
> >> > --- a/include/openflow/openflow-common.h
> >> > +++ b/include/openflow/openflow-common.h
> >> > @@ -276,8 +276,9 @@ enum ofp_capabilities {
> >> > OFPC_PORT_STATS = 1 << 2, /* Port statistics. */
> >> > OFPC_IP_REASM = 1 << 5, /* Can reassemble IP fragments. */
> >> > OFPC_QUEUE_STATS = 1 << 6, /* Queue statistics. */
> >> > - OFPC_ARP_MATCH_IP = 1 << 7 /* Match IP addresses in ARP
> >> > + OFPC_ARP_MATCH_IP = 1 << 7, /* Match IP addresses in ARP
> >> > pkts. */
> >> > + OFPC_PORT_BLOCKED = 1 << 8 /* Switch will block looping ports.
> >> */
> >> > };
> >>
> >> I don't think the actual feature behind this bit is implemented. That's
> >> the part that would be valuable to implement. Just adding the enum
> >> value doesn't do much for us, especially since (as Simon points out),
> >> it's already available with another name.
> >>
> >
> > ᐧ
> >
More information about the dev
mailing list