[pox-dev] Dealing with buffer ID = -1, i.e. no buffered packet
Murphy McCauley
murphy.mccauley at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 21:30:49 PDT 2012
Another note is that I've updated l2_learning and I think it should now just work for you.
-- Murphy
On Oct 8, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Sam Russell wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I've just got back from leave so trying to catch up on work before jumping back into this, but I think that's right - I had to explain to a colleague that 4294967295 isn't a valid buffer ID - having the None value will make this much easier. I need to start playing with betta more - and adding your comments to my projects to make them utilise POX more appropriately
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Murphy McCauley <murphy.mccauley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, Sam.
>
> l2_learning hasn't been updated for this, but check out l2_pairs in the betta branch, which uses the fact that packet_out and flow_mod can now be passed a packet_in as "data", and they should both "do the right thing".
>
> I think this addresses your problem. Feedback?
>
> Also, note that in betta, buffer ID of -1 on the wire comes out as None in Python. I think this is more intuitive, and saying it was "-1" was always questionable anyway, since the buffer ID field is unsigned.
>
> -- Murphy
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Sam Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with a vendor implementation of OpenFlow that I can't give any detail about other than to say that they don't buffer packets coming in, and they set the buffer ID field to -1.
>>
>> The good news is that they seem to follow the spec correctly, ignore the miss_send_len field and send the whole packet to the controller, but they do seem to rely on packet_in messages to make sure the first packet in a flow gets delivered.
>>
>> I've modified l2_learning.py to handle this, not sure if I'm supposed to add attachments here, but the main functions are below. This appears to work on the new implementation, and I think it would be a useful addition to POX as FloodLight apparently handles this out of the box ;)
>>
>> Is this a good way to deal with it, or is there a better one (possibly already implemented in POX somewhere?)
>>
>> def _handle_PacketIn (self, event):
>> [..]
>> def flood ():
>> """ Floods the packet """
>> msg = of.ofp_packet_out()
>> if event.ofp.buffer_id == -1:
>> #log.warning("Not flooding unbuffered packet on %s",
>> # dpidToStr(event.dpid))
>> #return
>>
>> # Ideally we'll set a flow to flood AND send to controller
>> # for multicast packets, but for now we'll just make
>> # sure that they can get through
>> # If buffer ID == -1 then we have the whole packet
>> msg._set_data(packet)
>>
>> if time.time() - self.connection.connect_time > FLOOD_DELAY:
>> # Only flood if we've been connected for a little while...
>> #log.debug("%i: flood %s -> %s", event.dpid, packet.src, packet.dst)
>> msg.actions.append(of.ofp_action_output(port = of.OFPP_FLOOD))
>> else:
>> pass
>> #log.info("Holding down flood for %s", dpidToStr(event.dpid))
>> msg.buffer_id = event.ofp.buffer_id
>> msg.in_port = event.port
>> self.connection.send(msg)
>> [..]
>> # 6
>> log.debug("installing flow for %s.%i -> %s.%i" %
>> (packet.src, event.port, packet.dst, port))
>> msg = of.ofp_flow_mod()
>> msg.match = of.ofp_match.from_packet(packet)
>> msg.idle_timeout = 10
>> msg.hard_timeout = 30
>> msg.actions.append(of.ofp_action_output(port = port))
>> msg.buffer_id = event.ofp.buffer_id # 6a
>> self.connection.send(msg)
>>
>> if event.ofp.buffer_id == -1:
>> # do a packet send message too since we can't tag this on the
>> # mod_flow message
>> msg = of.ofp_packet_out()
>> msg._set_data(packet)
>> msg.actions.append(of.ofp_action_output(port = port))
>> msg.buffer_id = event.ofp.buffer_id
>> msg.in_port = event.port
>> self.connection.send(msg)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noxrepo.org/pipermail/pox-dev-noxrepo.org/attachments/20121008/d2c9d012/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the pox-dev
mailing list