Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply. It does clear up some confusion. The IP centric
understanding of LOCAL action is what I inferred from an earlier thread:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/openflow-discuss/2011-April/002082.html
I too feel that NORMAL is not that well defined in the spec, at le
Hi Rob and Nick,
The following seems to be a problem with FlowVisor.
In the spec, vendor extension such as OFPST_VENDOR and OFPAT_VENDOR is
defined as 0x. However, FlowVisor has tables that doesn't assume
0x (or -1 in signed short). For example:
static final Class convertStatsRequestMap
Hi Oliver and Zhesen,
I realized that the relevant NOX components was dropped due to server
moving, pushing functionalities upstream, etc. My apologies for the
slipup. I have updated the n-casting page. You can find the missing
components in the tarball here
(http://yuba.stanford.edu/openflow/d
(Sorry if you get this twice. Bad email source addr used.)
While I might get some pushback (hopefully I will) for saying this, I would
argue that NORMAL is not that well defined; at least, it is highly
implementation dependent.
LOCAL is pretty well defined since in all implementations there i
Hi,
I have some confusion regarding difference between LOCAL and NORMAL action. My
[current] understanding is LOCAL refers to host's TCP/IP stack while NORMAL
states "Process packets using traditional non-Openflow Pipeline of the switch".
What I understand from it is that NORMAL action should o
