datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.7.1.p2, 2014-10-29
Report a bug

Analysis of Comparisons between OpenFlow and ForCES
draft-hares-forces-vs-openflow-00

Document type: Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Document stream: No stream defined
Last updated: 2013-01-09 (latest revision 2012-07-08)
Intended RFC status: Unknown
Other versions: (expired, archived): plain text, pdf, html

Stream State:No stream defined
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: Expired
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hares-forces-vs-openflow-00.txt

Abstract

While both ForCES and OpenFlow follow the basic idea of separations of forwarding plane and control plane in network elements, they are technically different. ForCES specification contains both a modeling language [RFC5812] which allows flexible definition of the Flow tables and flow logic. ForCES flow logic include Logical Functional Blocks (LFBs) connected in flow logic that is described in logic of direct graphs augmented by passage of Metadata and grouping concepts. OpenFlow's specifications contain a specific instantiation of Flow tables and flow logic which has emerged from the research community theories. OpenFlow's logic varies based on the revision of the specification (OpenFlow-Paper [McKeown2008], OpenFlow Switch Specification 1.0 [OpenFlow1-0], OpenFlow 1.1 [OpenFlow-1.1] Open Configuration 1.0 [OpenFlowConfig-1.0]).

Authors

Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid)