Hi Sachin, Thanks for all the heads-up.
For aging, I am a little wary about the consequence of implementing aging. Wireless clients (esp. phones with WiFi) tends to be fairly silent these days. I don't have numbers for that, but it might be good to have some value to play with before pushing such a patch. I will see how I can get some of these numbers. Thanks. Regards KK On 6 December 2010 13:09, sachin sharma <sharon_sac...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > Hi Srini, > > Thank you very much for the patch. > > Switch.cc implements L2 learning. But in this patch, action are taken on > link failure. This does not match with MAC learning. > > The code of switch.cc works fine. But only the issue is that it does not > implement aging timer. > > Aging timer is explained below: > > http://noxrepo.org/pipermail/nox-dev_noxrepo.org/2010-December/001845.html > > I think if we implement this then MAC learning code would work well for > protection scenarios as well. > > So from my point of view, we should not take the action on link status > change. > > The patch would work fine. But this could be a enhancement over MAC > learning. > > Best Regards, > Sachin Sharma > > ________________________________ > From: Srini Seetharaman <seeth...@stanford.edu> > To: kk yap <yap...@stanford.edu> > Cc: sachin sharma <sharon_sac...@yahoo.co.in>; nox-dev@noxrepo.org > Sent: Mon, 6 December, 2010 9:43:43 PM > Subject: Re: [nox-dev] working of switch api on link failure > >> 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
