You were exactly right Rob. The 192.x.x.x IPs were encapsulated inside the
controller's IP addresses. But still I don't get response from the controller
(Floodlight in this case). Controller is responding to the initial 'hello'
messages but does not respond to the 2 packet_in messages that are sent to it
(rest of packet_in's seem to have been blocked somewhere). I am using the
pre-configured floodlight VM for this purpose and I know floodlight is running
as I can do a successful 'pingall' in a minimal mininet topology.
Kindly help me resolve this problem.
Thanks,
Salman
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:47:18 -0700
> Subject: Re: [openflow-discuss] cbench utility
> From: rob.sherw...@bigswitch.com
> To: salma...@live.com
> CC: openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu
>
> Salman,
>
> What you're doing sounds completely normal. What controller are you using?
>
> Also, if you're using wireshark to dissect the packets, the IPs are a
> bit confusing -- you're seeing the IPs of the data packets embedded in
> the packet_in's, not the IPs of the outer transport layer packets. If
> you explore deeper into the packet, you should be able to verify this.
>
> - Rob
> .
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Salman Malik <salma...@live.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick reply Rob.
> > In my configuration I am using two VMs connected in a host-only network mode
> > and I can ping fine between the two VMs. And while using cbench I see the
> > right src/dst IPs in the packets when the switches send 'Hello' messages to
> > the controller but rest of the messages have 192.x.x.x type of addresses.
> > Furthermore, even when using it with the local host I see some of the
> > packets with these 192.x.x.x addresses. So I think its not a firewall issue.
> >
> > I am using the OpenFlow tutorial VM which has preinstalled cbench and I
> > start it with "cbench --controller=<remote-IP>". May be I am doing something
> > wrong here.
> >
> > Salman
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:15:40 -0700
> >> Subject: Re: [openflow-discuss] cbench utility
> >> From: rob.sherw...@bigswitch.com
> >> To: salma...@live.com
> >> CC: openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu
> >
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Salman Malik <salma...@live.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > I have been looking at the cbench utlility and found that it works
> >> > almost
> >> > fine when the controller lies on the localhost, but when controller lies
> >> > on
> >> > a remote host I see no replies from the controller. I can see the
> >> > packet_in
> >> > messages at the controller side using wireshark and it seems that that
> >> > the
> >> > source and destination IP addresses of the packets are somewhat hard
> >> > coded
> >> > to 192.168.0.40 and 192.168.1.40 respectively. Furthermore, I don't see
> >> > any
> >> > option/argument for changing these values.
> >> >
> >> > So perhaps my question is: Can I test a remote controller using cbench ?
> >>
> >> My high-level reply is that cbench definitely works with remote
> >> controllers and people have used it to do that all of the time. My
> >> guess is that you're having some sort of environmental problem, e.g.,
> >> a firewall blocking the connection.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >>
> >> - Rob
> >> .
_______________________________________________
openflow-discuss mailing list
openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
