https://jira.opendaylight.org This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.20.10 820010 22-06-2022 https://jira.opendaylight.org/browse/OPNFLWPLUG-608 OpenFlowPlugin <p>Openflowplugin currently supports only subnet masking (CIDR). It does not support Arbitrary subnet masking for L3 Source and Destination IP Address for flow match.</p> <p>Example of usage of subnet mask when pushing a flow which works is as follows E.g &lt;ipv4-destination&gt;200.200.200.10/24&lt;/ipv4-destination&gt;</p> <p>Example of usage of arbitrary subnet mask when pushing a flow which does not work is as follows E.g &lt;ipv4-destination&gt;200.200.200.10/255.255.240.0&lt;/ipv4-destination&gt; throws rest conf validation error, because current ietf-inet-types model don't support arbitrary mask.</p> <p>I have a attached a file with this bug which shows the error message when we add a flow using arbitrary bit mask.</p> <p>Arbitrary mask was introduced in the latest revision of ietf-yang-types (typedef dotted-quad) and that is something can be leveraged to support this addition. With its introduction, we can use both subnet mask and arbitrary bit mask.</p> <p>Operating System: All<br/> Platform: All</p> OPNFLWPLUG-608

Adding support for L3 address arbitraty mask for Ipv4

Bug Resolved Done Unassigned Sai MarapaReddy Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:47:04 +0000 Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:01:42 +0000 Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:39:32 +0000 General 0 2 <p>Attachment arbitrarymask.PNG has been added with description: Arbitrary bit mask error</p> <p>I have seen that "bug" and for personal reasons I wanted arbitrary mask match to work.I implemented it locally and it is working fine.The thing is, I implemented it for ipv6 source and destination, but the idea is the same.I am new to this, so I have to contribute my solution.</p> <p>Ioannis Schistos :- Please let me know if you need any help in pushing your existing solution.</p> <p>Hey, the thing is have implemented as I told you for ipv6 by stating my own typedef because I had not seen the new yangs.Now I go on the newly revisioned ones and I cannot understand how the ipv4 prefix is different from the old one(or the ipv6 prefix) .If you could help me with that, I could understand the point where it differs and I would be able to integrate my implementation.<br/> Thank you.</p> <p>Hi Ioannis, We need Dotted-quad notation for ipv4-arbitrary-bit-mask. This is avaialble in new yang model ietf-yang-types revision 20130715. From implementation point of view - I completed the code and pushed to drafts where i just added you as a reviewer. Will publish sooner. Waiting for last minute changes. Please let me know if you need any further information.</p> <p>(In reply to Sai MarapaReddy from comment #4)<br/> &gt; Hi Ioannis, We need Dotted-quad notation for ipv4-arbitrary-bit-mask. This<br/> &gt; is avaialble in new yang model ietf-yang-types revision 20130715. From<br/> &gt; implementation point of view - I completed the code and pushed to drafts<br/> &gt; where i just added you as a reviewer. Will publish sooner. Waiting for last<br/> &gt; minute changes. Please let me know if you need any further information.</p> <p>Ok. I am implementing ipv6-arbitrary match though.But ok.</p> <p>Should I go ahead and implement ipv6 with a pattern of my own?<br/> Ioannis</p> <p>Should I go ahead and implement ipv6 with a pattern of my own?<br/> Ioannis</p> <p>I am not working on IPv6 part. Please feel free to implement.</p> <p>Ok, I will go ahead and implement it.Could I make you a reviewer?</p> <p>Sure. But Please add one of the Committers as a reviewer too.</p> <p>I will be the commiter.</p> <p>Committer as defined here - <a href="https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OpenFlow_Plugin:Main" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OpenFlow_Plugin:Main</a></p> <p>Only committers can merge if i am not wrong.</p> <p>Oh ok.I get it now, thank you. Could from my solution refer to this bug(since this bug mentions L3 not only ipv4)?But still mentioning that my solution implements ipv6.</p> <p>(In reply to Ioannis Schistos from comment #13)<br/> &gt; Oh ok.I get it now, thank you. Could from my solution refer to this<br/> &gt; bug(since this bug mentions L3 not only ipv4)?But still mentioning that my<br/> &gt; solution implements ipv6.</p> <p>I would change the description of bug. Please open another if possible, so that we can merge separately.</p> <p>Patch committed - <a href="https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/35223/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/35223/</a></p> <p>Patch committed - <a href="https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/35223/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/35223/</a></p> Blocks YANGTOOLS-580 Development External issue ID 5119 External issue URL Rank 0|i0327b: