Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[mininet-discuss] ovs-vswitchd support?

Parantapa Bhattacharya parantapa at
Fri Oct 28 04:08:27 PDT 2011

>>> Using the multiprocessing module is interesting. I didn't use call() since it fails with large numbers of file descriptors.
>> Did you try close_fds parameter for call? Anyway i didn't hit the
>> limit so it didn't bother me.
> I do that, but the issue is with the parent, not the child.

Maybe you were opening files needed only by the child in the parent.
Need to check on that.

> 1. Perhaps my wording was unclear - by "pick" I did not mean "load" but rather "select or identify", that is, how might you *identify the library's name* in a cross-platform, non-hard-wired way?

Hmm. Truly speaking I never thought of that. However looking at
unshare(2) and libc(7) man page, it seems that unshare is a Linux only
system call.
Also de facto standard library, glibc uses to point to the
actual libc dynamic library. I wont bother much until i face a case
where someone has a problem.

> 2. That doesn't answer the question: why include support for the linux bridge if you don't need to?

What I wrote was truly a one weekend thing :P. I wanted to get started
quick and dirty. Figuring out how to do the stuff was more interesting
to me during those 2 days than to write a proper mininet alternative.
Thus bridge stayed. Moreover, linux bridge class is more or less
negligible and basically served as my interface for the OpenVSwitch
class. It is not also tied to any other part of the code. So if anyone
doesn't like it just delete it :P. And by small i really meant without
any proper mininet like shell and the other ui related stuff.

> It's easy to bridge to the root namespace (see and -

I agree on that. But it depends on having interfaces properly
configured before you can start your forwarding. I wanted something
that doesn't depend on that. I wanted a solution where I should be
able to configure and my apps shouldn't depend on the vswitches and

> Parametrized topologies are extremely useful; a library of topologies is also extremely useful; neither one prevents you building your own. One might also argue that having a mapping between graphs which can be computed upon, plotted, etc. is also useful.

Firstly it was my opinion. I want things small simple and separate.
And really, how difficult is it to attach hosts, switches, and links
to a graph once you have created the graph ? Anyway, I don't think
there is any point in arguing about opinions. Authors should have the
choice to write stuff the way they want.

Parantapa Bhattacharya

More information about the mininet-discuss mailing list