Hi, Thanks for your answer Eder.
I need two fast failover groups (and even more in my complete setup) because I wanna do some others actions in the bucket and it wouldn't work with only one group. The software switch I'm using does support fast failover groups (the example you gave is working for example). But I think that I found why my example is not working. And it's because setting the metadata field in a group is not possible because it's an instruction and only actions can be used in groups. Do you have an idea about that? Do you think that it has to do with the fact that group entries actions are processed almost right at the end and that's why it's not possible to go back to flow tables after that? Therefore setting the metadata in the group entries is not possible. Best, Clément On 17 February 2015 at 23:00, Eder Leão Fernandes < ederleaofernan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Clément, > > Your setup does not seem wrong. My question is why do you need two fast > failover groups? Is it not better just to add a second bucket to Gr 0? > > With fast failover groups you could set the first bucket watch_port to the > port 1. If port 1 is down, the group will try to execute the second bucket, > which has the action to forward for port 2. > > Another thing to check is if the software switch you are using with > mininet supports fast failover groups. > > Best Regards, > Eder. > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Clément Rault <rault.clem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> I am currently trying to implement an algorithm allowing an alternative >> path to be found without the need to contact the controller. And for that I >> need to use group entries of the fast failover type. In my algorithm, I'm >> using action buckets of multiple group entries on a single packet and I'm >> wondering if it's possible in practice (with OpenFlow) *as group entries >> actions are processed almost right at the end and it might not be possible >> to go back to flow tables after that*. >> >> >> For example I have the following (simple) *scenario*: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Table 0:Apply Gr 0 actions, Goto Table 1Gr 0:If port 1 is up then >> forward the packet there, put metadata to 1Table 1:If metadata is at 0 then >> Apply Gr 1 actionsGr 1:If port 2 is up then forward the packet there* >> >> >> I tried it (with mininet and ryu) but it didn't work and I'm worried that >> it's because it's not possible to apply the actions of multiple group >> entries. And probably because group entries actions are processed after >> going through all the flow tables. >> >> >> I would really appreciate, if anyone can kindly help me to understand, *if >> the following scenario is not working because of a design "issue" of >> Openflow or because it's an implementation issue (with ryu in my case)*. >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Best, >> Clément >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openflow-discuss mailing list >> openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Eder Leão Fernandes > > MSc Candidate > Faculdade de Engenharia Elétrica e Computação > Universidade de Campinas >
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list openflow-discuss@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
