Hi, Taha
I tried in your topology, then the link between s1 to s3 was blocked.
mininet> sh ovs-vsctl list port s3-eth2
_uuid : c77d93e9-fa2c-44ff-a538-349b24d5f8e3
(...snip...)
rstp_status : {}
statistics : {stp_error_count=0, stp_rx_count=785, stp_tx_count=1}
status : {stp_port_id="8002", stp_role=alternate,
stp_sec_in_state="1569", stp_state=blocking}
And I confirmed that the route to s2 was installed in s1 as a default route.
table=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0, priority=1,ip
actions=dec_ttl,set_field:7e:e0:84:db:d3:38->eth_src,set_field:e2:f8:d9:ba:32:
I think it is because the link between s1 to s3 was blocked.
ryu.app.rest_router adds the default route as a flow which specifies mac
address, like above.
And s1 cannot know the mac address of s3, because the link to s3 is blocked,
so the app uses the mac address of s2 as a default route.
Umm, I think ryu.app.rest_router can't get along with looped networks...
Thanks,
Fujimoto
On 2017年11月28日 13:21, Taha Khan wrote:
Hi,
I have a triangular topology as shown below. I have followed steps as
shown in RYU documentation, interface addresses are also same except
that, I have added a link between s1 to s3 as shown below.
I have enabled stp in mininet.
From the configuration below, I should be able to ping s3 from s1 and
s1 should directly send packets to s3 (*not through s2*), but it takes
the path through s2 although its not configured.
From the s1 router configuration below- if the destination ip of s3 is
given, it should be sent packets through gateway 172.16.40.2.
I started the controller using - */ryu-manager ryu.app.rest_router
ryu.app.simple_switch_13 ryu.app.ofctl_rest/*
*/
/*
Please find the attached mininet topology.
Other attached files: com_request1,py assign the interface address to
routers and comrequest2.py sets the custom routing in routers.
Inline image 1
Router Interface 1 Interface 2 Interface 3
s1 172.16.20.1 172.16.40.1 172.16.30.30
s2 172.16.10.1 172.16.30.1 192.168.10.1
s3 192.168.30.1 172.16.40.2 192.168.10.20
Flows Installed in the following manner-
*For Router S1 *
"route": [
{
"route_id": 3,
"destination": "0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>",
"gateway": "172.16.40.2"
},
{
"route_id": 2,
"destination": "172.16.10.0/24
<http://172.16.10.0/24>",
"gateway": "172.16.30.1"
}
],
*Router S2 --
*
**"route": [
{
"route_id": 1,
"destination": "0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>",
"gateway": "172.16.30.30"
},
{
"route_id": 2,
"destination": "192.168.30.0/24
<http://172.16.10.0/24>",
"gateway": "192.168.10.20"
}
],
*
*
*Router S3 --
*
"route": [
{
"route_id": 1,
"destination": "0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>",
"gateway": "172.16.40.1"
},
{
"route_id": 2,
"destination": "172.16.10.10/24
<http://172.16.10.0/24>",
"gateway": "192.168.10.1"
}
],
I am wondering
1. if link between s1 to s3 is in block state due to STP then why it
is blocking the ICMP packets instead of ARP?
2. If the STP is not the real issue what else it could be?
Thanks!
Taha
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Ryu-devel mailing list
Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Ryu-devel mailing list
Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
