On Oct 3, 2013, at 22:41 PM, Jesse Gross je...@nicira.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Fleytman dfley...@redhat.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2013, at 04:20 AM, Jesse Gross je...@nicira.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Dmitry Fleytman dfley...@redhat.com wrote:
On Apr 30,
I've known about this problem for years now, but I've always ignored it
because it didn't seem to cause trouble in practice.
I have a favorite straw-man approach. It won't work as-is, but perhaps
it will spur someone to an idea that would work. Suppose that we
changed the semantics of the
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Fleytman dfley...@redhat.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2013, at 04:20 AM, Jesse Gross je...@nicira.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Dmitry Fleytman dfley...@redhat.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2012, at 20:15 PM, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
I think that
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Dmitry Fleytman dfley...@redhat.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2012, at 20:15 PM, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
I think that your explanation stems from a misunderstanding. Yes, if
an OpenFlow controller uses a reactive model, then it cannot avoid the
problem.
I currently do not have a real scenario where I have run into this problem.
However, it is easy to see real scenarios where I could run into this. As
you said, most flows start off with a single packet and wait for a
response. But, there is also the flow eviction mechanism which would bring
this
It does indeed happen with UDP flows (or if a rule is removed while a flow is
active) and it's easy to observe.
It's not a bug in Open vSwitch, which is in fact implementing the correct
OpenFlow behavior.
In practice you can easily solve the problem either by pushing down routes
proactively or
Are you planning to solve this problem in near future or do you have any
suggestions to mitigate this problem?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:33:56PM -0700, Joji Mtt wrote:
I am trying to figure out if there would be a packet order
It isn't commonly a problem in practice because flows most often start
off with a single packet and wait for a return packet before ramping up
packet volume. I've been aware of the issue for years, but you are the
only other person I ever recall bringing it up on the mailing lists.
Do you have a
Hi-
I am trying to figure out if there would be a packet order issue with the
current version of OVS. Consider a case where a controller has added a
forwarding rule for a specific flow (Flow A) and this rule is not yet
installed in the DP. In this scenario, it is conceivable that certain
(bursty)
