[ovs-discuss] OVS supported hardware switches

Stephen Bailey steph at cs.uchicago.edu
Fri Mar 17 01:33:26 UTC 2017


I think it would be unfortunate to drop ofproto.

I can't speak to Allied's implementation, but all switch implementations I
am aware of use ofproto, including several I have worked on.

These implementations don't tend to get upstreamed.  However, I think OVS
plays quite an important role as an (the?) OpenFlow reference
implementation.

I'm not sure if we could accomplish it but if it would help provide some
mass against ofproto, perhaps we could get an implemention or two
upstreamed?

Steph


On Mar 16, 2017 08:58, "Ben Pfaff" <blp at ovn.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:26:28PM +1300, Tony van der Peet wrote:
> > >On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:14:55AM +0530, Shravan S K wrote:
> > >> We are looking to buy a few OpenFlow-enabled switches. What
> advantages can
> > >> be achieved by a hardware switch that also supports OVS?
> > >> And can a hardware openflow L2 switch perform L3,L4 based openflow
> > >> forwarding - can I inspect L3,L4 layers and take a decision based on
> them ?
> > >
> > >It's hard to tell.  No one ever comes to us and says that they base
> > >their switch on OVS.  You have to guess.
> >
> > For the record, Allied Telesis have a range of switches that use OVS.
>
> Good to know.  Do these switches implement a dpif provider or an ofproto
> provider?  We're talking about dropping the ofproto provider layer, so
> it's an important question.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20170317/29498643/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list