On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Adrian Lewis <adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi All, > > > > Just wondering if the Bigswitch integration for CS requires the Big Virtual > Switch component or whether this is just a complimentary aspect? I ask this > as I’m wondering if the future holds the possibility of using the > Floodlight controller in CS with third party Floodlight compatible ‘apps’ > but without having to purchase both the commercial Big Virtual Switch and > the Big Network Controller. Adrian, currently the BVS integration is not floodlight compatible. However it should not take much to do it. Therefore it is in the short future, I am hoping we will have it for the 4.3 release. Note that big switch is extending floodlight and bringing a lot of their BVS features within floodlight. > Does the plugin talk to the controller directly > or does it have to talk to the BVS for instance? I’m not averse to paying > for good software but from the prices I’ve seen for BVS and BNC I simply > can’t justify the investment at the moment. > > > > I understand that there is on-going work with this from both a GSOC > participant (“tuna”) as well as Big Switch Networks themselves (Kanzhe > Jiang) but I can’t for the life of me work out what’s been done, The BVS integration should be functional in 4.2 > what’s > going to be done and what might work already. It get the impression that > the current plugins don’t work with Floodlight but this is only due to the > fact that the Floodlight API were not finalised in time for the 4.1 code. I don't believe there has been any testing with floodlight itself. > Does anyone have an insight into what might be possible in 4.2 or even 4.3 > with regards to Floodlight, in particular the use of Floodlight to create > non-VLAN/GRE/STT isolation (they call them Virtual Network Segments) Bottom line, this should be in 4.3 if we get tuna to keep working on it past the gsoc project and that we get some collaboration from BigSwitch. You are welcome to chip in. -sebastien > – not > too sure if this would work for broadcast or multicast isolation though. > Looking at code is unfortunately quite foreign to me – I’m a networking guy > at heart. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Adrian
