Given the circumstances, that seems like the only logical thing to do.

--Colin

openflowplugin-dev-bounces@... wrote on 08/30/2013 10:37:49 AM:
> From: "Madhu Venugopal (vmadhu)" <vmadhu@...>
> To: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>
> Cc: "openflowjava-dev@..." <openflowjava-
> dev@...>, "openflowplugin-
> dev@..." <openflowplugin-dev@...>
> Date: 08/30/2013 10:38 AM
> Subject: [openflowplugin-dev] Migrating to the new Openflow assigned
> port (6653)
> Sent by: openflowplugin-dev-bounces@...
>
> For those who don't know, IANA has assigned a new Openflow port 6653.
> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
> names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=openflow).
>
> Am not quite sure how 6633 was used so far as OpenFlow port, given
> the fact that it has been assigned to Cisco vPath Services Overlay :-)
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
> names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=vpath
>
> It was recommended to cut over to the new assigned port immediately.
>
> But given the current default usage of 6633, folks at the mini-
> summit recommended that the controller listen to both 6633 & 6653 to
> Provide backward compatibility. Also this provides a proper
> deprecation policy.
>
> Ofcourse these ports will be configurable on the controller.
> This discussion is only about the default value that the controller
> must listen to :-)
>
> Any comments/concerns with the approach of listening to 6653 & 6633
> (and configurable) by default ?
>
> Thanks,
> Madhu_______________________________________________
> openflowplugin-dev mailing list
> openflowplugin-dev@...
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev