Ok, there may be some misinterpretations of what I wanted to say.
When I see a Central controller, I see an entity. I don't see a single or a
group of machines, I see a concept. For me a central control system is
still central, even if behind it, there are hundreds of machines executing
instruction
Thank you Ben.
Taking another look at the specs for 1.3.0, I see you are right. I
somehow missed this sentence about set-field: "The value of
oxm_hasmask must be zero and no oxm_mask is included."
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:05:37PM +0200, Mar
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:05:37PM +0200, Marco Canini wrote:
> Imagine I want to have a rule that for every matching packet modifies
> just the first byte of the dst ETH address and leaves the rest as is.
> Can I do this in OpenFlow?
> Since version 1.2, set-field uses OXM field value+mask types.
Hello,
Imagine I want to have a rule that for every matching packet modifies
just the first byte of the dst ETH address and leaves the rest as is.
Can I do this in OpenFlow?
Since version 1.2, set-field uses OXM field value+mask types. However,
reading from the specs, I am not clear whether the co
hi Carlos,
On Oct 21, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
> I don't really understand why would anyone want multiple controllers, when
> there could be only one controller and over it, multiple apps implementing
> different services. Its a much more simple layered approach.
multiple contr
Why not having the same controller, controlling all the switches? What is
the problem? Remember that central control is a concept. Its
implementation can follow diverse paths, going from 1 server only to an app
running in a cloud.
I don't really understand why would anyone want multiple controller
