On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Murphy McCauley <[email protected]>wrote:
> In the future, please consider not dropping the list. > > > None of the components which ship with POX are intended for this use case, > but it can be done in several ways. For example... > > One straightforward approach would be to implement STP-over-OpenFlow. > Another is to have controllers communicate between each other to jointly > discover the whole network's topology (this is the approach taken by ONOS). > If you don't do controller assignment at random and instead have multiple > "islands", then you can do a two-level discovery (discovery within islands > and discovery between islands). > > There's a whole space of designs, and I'm not sure that there are any > clear universal winners. > > -- Murphy > > On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:21 AM, Dharani Kunnuru <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you for your reply.. > > Yes it is working for single controller case. I have tried with 3 modules > forwarding.l2_learning, openflow.spanning_tree, openflow.dicovery. > Forwarding is possible incase of loops also. > > The same i tried with multiple controllers. It is not working. > > I have created 4 switches as follows: > > s1-------s2 > | | > | | > s3-------s4 > > connection between s3---s2 and s1---s4 are also there. > > I have assigned switches randomly under two controllers c1 & c2 . > > In this scenario, no two hosts are communicating. So , is there any way to > make this work. > > please let me know the solution. > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Murphy McCauley < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Most (or all?) of the forwarding components POX ships with will cause >> broadcast/flood storms when used on topologies with loops by themselves. >> This isn't a property of POX, but of the specific forwarding components. >> It can be resolved in multiple ways. One way is to disable flooding on >> some switch ports such that the flood-enabled ports form a spanning tree. >> The openflow.spanning_tree POX component implements this method in a way >> which is at least partially agnostic to the forwarding component. >> >> So the short answer is yes. If you, for example, run l2_learning and >> openflow.spanning_tree (the latter of which also requires >> openflow.discovery, if I recall correctly), forwarding should work even on >> topologies with loops. See the POX manual wiki and probably the >> openflow.spanning_tree docstring for more on this. >> >> -- Murphy >> >> On Sep 11, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Dharani Kunnuru <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I want to use POX controller to distributed control plane ( Logically >> centralized but physically distributed) . And the topology iam going to use >> should support loops? So, I want to know whether POX supports loops or not? >> >> I have tried with single controller, All hosts are not able to >> communicate with each. I have read one post in this group >> >> >> http://lists.noxrepo.org/pipermail/pox-dev-noxrepo.org/2013-July/000834.html >> >> They mention some changes to switch to allow loops? So is it possible to >> configure switch to allow loops?? >> >> Please some one reply me.. >> >> -- >> *K Dharani* >> >> >> > > > -- > *K Dharani* > > > Sorry for breaking the list... And thank you for your reply.. There is restriction in floodlight controller like only one link is allowed between the Openflow and non-Openflow islands. Like this, any kind of restrictions in POX. Please let me know -- *K Dharani*
