Operating System: All
Platform: All

Which version of OVS are you testing against ?

(In reply to Shuva Jyoti Kar from comment #1)
> Which version of OVS are you testing against ?

2.5.1

(In reply to Yair Zinger from comment #2)
> (In reply to Shuva Jyoti Kar from comment #1)
> > Which version of OVS are you testing against ?
>
> 2.5.1

could you please attach the Wireshark capture of the same to the bug

See packets number 216 and 218

Attachment indirect group removal error.pcap has been added with description: indirect group removal error pcap

(In reply to Shuva Jyoti Kar from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yair Zinger from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Shuva Jyoti Kar from comment #1)
> > > Which version of OVS are you testing against ?
> >
> > 2.5.1
>
> could you please attach the Wireshark capture of the same to the bug

Yes, I've attached it.

Perhaps this could help

http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-March/067852.html

I remember that the patch was merged sometime in April , but couldnot find it out.

(In reply to Shuva Jyoti Kar from comment #6)
> Perhaps this could help
>
> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-March/067852.html
>
> I remember that the patch was merged sometime in April , but couldnot find
> it out.

It's good that this was reported.
But it we still have a problem in the 2.5 official release and 2.4 OVS versions and the spec says to ignore the type, maybe we should always use "all" type for groups removal?

FYI we decided to workaround NETVIRT-91 by using "all" group with a single bucket instead of "indirect" in netvirt, so no need for this in Boron from our side.

We should probably do something with this in openflowplugin for Carbon (use all when deleting indirect? verify fix of delete with indirect in OVS2.6?)

Is this a bug in ovs?

(In reply to Andrej Leitner from comment #9)
> Is this a bug in ovs?

According to the openflow spec the switch should ignore it.
However, this is not fixed in OVS 2.4 and 2.5 official releases.

I think it will be best if we support the use of OVS 2.4 and 2.5.

In addition, there's a bug in ODL:
When trying to remove a group and specifically use a type for the removal it ignore it and use the type that was used for the group installation.

We should definitely fix ODL/OFP bugs, but in general, I don't think it is good idea to adjust our code to work with different bugs in other related systems.

(In reply to Andrej Leitner from comment #9)
> Is this a bug in ovs?

Yes that's fixed as a part of
https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/commit/beaa2b8702a20fa1f55e3b4c072dfe6fa394d6d1

(In reply to Yair Zinger from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrej Leitner from comment #9)
> > Is this a bug in ovs?
>
> According to the openflow spec the switch should ignore it.
> However, this is not fixed in OVS 2.4 and 2.5 official releases.
>
> I think it will be best if we support the use of OVS 2.4 and 2.5.
>
> In addition, there's a bug in ODL:
> When trying to remove a group and specifically use a type for the removal it
> ignore it and use the type that was used for the group installation.

Could you please rephrase the question?

It was reaction to:

(In reply to Yair Zinger from comment #7)
> It's good that this was reported.
> But it we still have a problem in the 2.5 official release and 2.4 OVS
> versions and the spec says to ignore the type, maybe we should always use
> "all" type for groups removal?

No activity on this bug from last 1 year, closing the bug. Please re-open the bug if you see this issue with carbon/nitrogen/oxygen branch.