You can setup a Linux-HA <http://www.linux-ha.org> architecture to achieve this without the need for a flowvisor. That is, build a topology as follows.
OF Controller-A / OF-Switch ---- Unmanaged Switch \ OF Controller-B Say you have Linux-HA installed on each controller and they are sharing a virtual IP address which corresponds to the controller address the OF-Switch is set to connect. Controllers check each others' liveliness through heartbeats and when one goes down, the other one acquires the released virtual IP address. During such a transition (that is, migrating the virtual IP address from one controller to another) the OF Switch observes a connection failure and retries to connect such that in the very first retry it gets redirected to the active controller. (Beforehand, after acquiring the virtual IP address, the active controller sends an ARP PING to the Unmanaged-Switch to flush its ARP cache.) If you further don't want your switches to observe this minuscule connection failure, you might pull a Flowvisor in between to do this connection reattempt for you. That is, OF Controller-A / OF-Switch ---- Flowvisor ---- Unmanaged Switch \ OF Controller-B Contrary to SIGCOMM HotSDN'12 reviewers, who had claimed that this architecture is impractical, we (and the other thousands of Linux cluster users in the rest of the world) have been using sophisticated derivations of such high-availability methods successfully to implement distributed OF controllers. (See Controlling a Software-Defined Network via Distributed Controllers<http://nem-summit.eu/files/2012/10/2012_NEM_Summit_Proceedings.pdf>for details.) As an example, we successfully migrate 256 switches from one controller to another in ~8 secs. If you further On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Panagiotis Georgopoulos < pa...@comp.lancs.ac.uk> wrote: > Hello,**** > > ** ** > > We are currently building an openflow setup on our > production network and we have the following : **** > > ** ** > > HP Openflow switch <--> Flowvisor ------> > Experimental-Floodlight-Controller**** > > |-------------> > Fallback-Floodlight-Controller**** > > **** > > We currently have two slices on flowvisor (each on its own > FlowEntry), one slice pointing to the Experimental-Floodlight controller > with high priority and another slice pointing to our Fallback-Floodlight > controller with lower priority. The idea is that everything goes to the > Experimental-Floodlight controller but if we have to change it and the > controller is not up, everything should be forwarded to the > Fallback-Floodlight controller so that normal network operation continues. > **** > > ** ** > > How do we properly configure the above? **** > > ** ** > > It seems that the current behavior we are seeing is that if the > Experimental-Floodlight controller is down, nothing gets forwarded to our > Fallback-Floodlight controller. Do I understand it correctly that if we put > both slices next to each other in one FlowEntry, then each request will be > broadcasted to both slices, thus having the Fallback-Floodlight-Controller > responding even when the Experimental-Floodlight-Controller would be > running?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks a lot for your help,**** > > Panos**** > > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > openflow-discuss mailing list > openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss