I take that back, just now noticed your response to patch 2/2.
Jarno
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> Ping.
>
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>> I was able to implement the Extension 230 on top of these, so
I applied these already, following your review.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:44:05PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Ping.
>
> > On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >
> > I was able to implement the Extension 230 on top of these, so looking good
> > :-)
> >
>
Ping.
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> I was able to implement the Extension 230 on top of these, so looking good :-)
>
> Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme
>
>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>
>> ONF introduced
I was able to implement the Extension 230 on top of these, so looking good :-)
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> ONF introduced a number of "standard extensions" that use its own
> vendor (experimenter) ID. This commit
ONF introduced a number of "standard extensions" that use its own
vendor (experimenter) ID. This commit adds support for such extensions to
ofp-msgs.
These extensions were already half-supported, so there's barely any change
to build-aux/extract-ofp-msgs.
This isn't fully tested, since nothing