I started getting more detailed OpenFlow questions after the initial “What is OpenFlow” blog post, and tried to answer the most common ones in a follow-up post.

Please note that OpenFlow remains a mostly-academic protocol, and is not supported on most modern routers or switches.

What Is OpenFlow (Part 2)?

Got this set of questions from a CCIE pondering emerging technologies that could be of potential use in his data center:

I don’t think OpenFlow is clearly defined yet. Is it a protocol? A model for Control plane – Forwarding plane FP interaction? An abstraction of the forwarding-plane? An automation technology? Is it a virtualization technology? I don’t think there is consensus on these things yet.

OpenFlow is very well defined. It’s a control plane (controller) – data plane (switch) protocol that allows control plane to:

  • Modify forwarding entries in the data plane;
  • Send control protocol (or data) packets through any port of any controlled data-plane devices;
  • Receive (and process) packets that cannot be handled by the data plane forwarding rules. These packets could be control-plane protocol packets (for example, LLDP) or user data packets that need special processing.

As part of the protocol, OpenFlow defines abstract data plane structures (forwarding table entries) that have to be implemented by OpenFlow-compliant forwarding devices (switches).

Is it an abstraction of the forwarding plane? Yes, as far as it defines data structures that can be used in OpenFlow messages to update data plane forwarding structures.

Is it an automation technology? No, but it can be used to automate the network deployments. Imagine a cluster of OpenFlow controllers with shared configuration rules that use packet carrying capabilities of OpenFlow protocol to discover network topology (using LLDP or a similar protocol), build a shared topology map of the network, and use it to download forwarding entries into the controlled data planes (switches). Such a setup would definitely automate new device provisioning in a large-scale network.

Alternatively, you could use OpenFlow to create additional forwarding (actually packet dropping) entries in access switches or wireless access points deployed throughout your network, resulting in a scalable multi-vendor ACL solution.

Is it a virtualization technology? Of course not. However, its data structures can be used to perform MAC address, IP address or MPLS label lookup and push user packets into VLANs (or push additional VLAN tags to implement Q-in-Q) or MPLS-labeled frames, so you can implement most commonly used virtualization techniques (VLANs, Q-in-Q VLANs, L2 MPLS-based VPNs or L3 MPLS-based VPNs) with it.

There’s no reason you couldn’t control a virtual switch embedded in a hypervisor with OpenFlow – Open vSwitch is a well-known Linux implementation that includes numerous virtualization-focused extensions. Some of them were made part of OpenFlow standard, others remain a proprietary extension:

  • IPv6 matching with IPv6 header rewrite is part of OpenFlow 1.3.
  • Controller master/slave switch (a must for resilient large-scale solutions) also became part of OpenFlow specifications.
  • Virtual Port Tunnel configuration protocol and GRE/L3 tunnel support remains an OVS extension.

Summary: OpenFlow is like C++. You can use it to implement all sorts of interesting solutions, but it’s just a tool.

More information

Start with What is OpenFlow, and then check out these webinars:

You get all of them with the ipSpace.net subscription.

Revision History

Slight cleanup of OVS part of the blog post

Latest blog posts in OpenFlow Basics series


  1. Openflow (at least 1.0) probably best compares to Tcl, with C++ being noteworthy for its heavyweight complexity ;) In my opinion, the main selling point for Openflow in large-scale (100k+ servers) data-centers is significant simplification (if not complete reduction) of network control plane. Complex, multi-vendor software is the main barrier on the way to unified automation and improved network stability. In a highly-specialized networks, such as simple symmetric full-bisection bandwidth topologies, feature richness of common control/management plane stacks becomes unnecessary, more likely turning into source of software bugs and operational headache. On the "innovation" side, being praised by Openflow adepts, large scale networks would probably mostly benefit from advanced, automated, troubleshooting tools not found in modern IP networks.
Add comment