On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:25:30AM +0100, Jordi Baranda wrote: > On 19/11/2020 18:35, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:20:01PM +0100, Jordi Baranda wrote: > > > If I use break-before-make, there is no problem because I replace the > > > rules > > > and that is. However for the make-before-break approach, I foresee that > > > there > > > will be some flow rules with the same match fields but different action > > > fields. (e.g, t0: in_port: 3 -> out_port: 2 vs t1: in_port: 3 -> > > > out_port:4, > > > where t0 means time0 and t1 means time1 and t1 > t0 (older time instant) > > > ). I > > > know I could handle that with priorities but I think this may add further > > > complexity to the SDN controller app. > > I don't think this makes any sense. You cannot have two flows in a > > table with the same match fields and the same priority. Those are the > > same flow, and it has either one set of actions or another. > Yes, I understand. These entries will coexist for short time due to the > make-before-break approach. I will install the "new rule" with the same > match and different action and then remove the "old rule". My question as > you well described bellow is what happens while they coexist.
This is like saying that you're going to have two files with the same name in a directory for a brief time. Doesn't work. > > > I am wondering if I can skip this treatment at the SDN controller app > > > making > > > use of how OVS applies/evaluates rules in the flow table. More > > > specifically, > > > rules in the flow table of OVS (for the same priority) are evaluated in > > > any > > > time order? That is, OVS is considering "t1 rule" (which is more recent > > > than > > > the one of t0) before than "t0 rule" (however, t0 rule will be erased > > > afterwards)? Or are the flow-rules in the flow table ordered/evaluated > > > "randomly"? Additionally, has this changed through the OVS versions? > > I'm not sure I understand the question. Skipping by the problem above, > > let me rephrase my understanding of it in another way, and you can > > correct me if I get it wrong. I think you are saying, if a given packet > > has two "best match" flows at the same priority, will OVS choose the one > > added later by preference? No, OVS doesn't work that way; it has never > > used the order in which flows are added as an input into the > > classification process. > > Yes, the problem is as you described. While the rules coexists, which one > will be applied? According to what I read, I suppose OVS checks the rules in > the flow table and applies the first one making match. However, as I > understand, OVS is not applying "any given order" to evaluate the rules in > the flow-table, it could be that sometimes applies one rule and other time > applies the other rule. Is my understanding correct? I have found a thread > in stackoverflow asking about the same issue > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45195182/what-if-there-are-multiple-forwarding-rules-for-the-same-flow-in-the-openflow-sw> > that I am presenting. They say OVS will match the new rule, but maybe it was > casual. Is the behaviour that they see consistent in OVS? OVS doesn't guarantee any behavior here. It probably changes from one version to the next, or maybe even from one run to the next. I suggest using transactions to replace the contents of the flow table atomically. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
