Analysis of Comparisons between OpenFlow and ForCES
draft-hares-forces-vs-openflow-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Susan Hares | ||
| Last updated | 2013-01-09 (Latest revision 2012-07-08) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)