Hi Srini, 1) The archived port would be the same port?
2) My point precisely. So, what does clearing the flow entries achieve here? I contend that custom controllers might want to implement this flushing on their own. The patch is probably most useful as a component that other controllers can load on demand. Patching this on switch and routing would add to clutter with little utility in my opinion. Regards KK PS>> I am happy to push this functionality as a component. On 6 December 2010 12:43, Srini Seetharaman <seeth...@stanford.edu> wrote: >> Pardon my laziness in not reading the patches. I am confused here. Two >> points: >> 1) Switch does not depend on topology or discovery, so how do you get >> link failure? > > Oh, with switch, I use the port_status_change event and clear flow > rules (and the archived Mac_source for the port). > >> 2) There is no spanning tree implementation in NOX (distributed by >> default), i.e., you cannot have a redundant network with NOX. So, how >> can you possibly hope to find the host on a different route when a >> link failure occurs? On that note, why does handling link failure >> even matters? > > If a silent host (connected to port X) had moved to port Y, then your > table will still think the host is located on port X. Even if there > existed a chance of reaching host thro' port Y, the controller won't > really try that. > _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list nox-dev@noxrepo.org http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
