You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The following change proposed in V1.1.0 of the P4Runtime specification is not being handled in the current PI implementation:
"""
A.1.3. Changes in v1.1.0
Major overhaul of master-arbitration: while the Protobuf messages did not change, the state machine that the server needs to implement is significantly different. Upon the master disconnection, the server no longer chooses the controller with the second highest election id as the new master. Instead, there will not be a new master until one of the controllers advertises an election id higher than any election id seen previously.
""""
I see that the current server implementation does reelect the client with the next highest election id as the new primary. Instead the new expectation is that the server does not recompute a new primary when the current primary goes away. I am fixing it. But wanted to check with the group as well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The following change proposed in V1.1.0 of the P4Runtime specification is not being handled in the current PI implementation:
"""
A.1.3. Changes in v1.1.0
Major overhaul of master-arbitration: while the Protobuf messages did not change, the state machine that the server needs to implement is significantly different. Upon the master disconnection, the server no longer chooses the controller with the second highest election id as the new master. Instead, there will not be a new master until one of the controllers advertises an election id higher than any election id seen previously.
""""
I see that the current server implementation does reelect the client with the next highest election id as the new primary. Instead the new expectation is that the server does not recompute a new primary when the current primary goes away. I am fixing it. But wanted to check with the group as well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: