On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:15:29PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> IMO you have included sufficient testing to warrant the code to be
> merged, maybe remove the “RFC” reference from the commit message?
Yes, that was a mistake, I forgot to remove it from the commit message
before posting.
> Some c
IMO you have included sufficient testing to warrant the code to be merged,
maybe remove the “RFC” reference from the commit message?
Some comments for future consideration below.
With this incremental:
diff --git a/lib/ofp-util.c b/lib/ofp-util.c
index 42c8f1e..4a080cd 100644
--- a/lib/ofp-util
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:51:29AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This RFC patch has a number of caveats:
>
> * No real tests yet.
Ooops, that's old and incorrect. This patch includes adequate tests, in
my opinion.
I'll remove this from the commit message.
___
One purpose of OpenFlow packet-in messages is to allow a controller to
interpose on the path of a packet through the flow tables. If, for
example, the controller needs to modify a packet in some way that the
switch doesn't directly support, the controller should be able to
program the switch to se
