- Did you like this paper? Why? 1-2 sentences.
Its ok for me, because they are promising 2x improvements using a Risc cpu combined with a TCAM changing the architecture. But I'm not pretty sure how it could behave in a real implementation.
Also for me, some parts I could understand and follow the high level idea but some others parts where too much specific.
- What problem is this paper solving? 2-3 sentences.
They are solving the problem of matching and action, in a switching device using openflow and maintain a high throughput. Specially now that the latest openflow specifications includes reconfigurable match tables. That is very important because will allow a better control of the data plane.
- What are the strengths of this paper? 3-4 sentences.
The strengths are the initial improvements and design to building switches allowing match more fields and protocols.
Also their design if its correct its promising a lot comparing to cost.
- What are the main weaknesses in the paper? 3-4 sentences.
The main weakness is that is a theorical paper even if its a system paper. But I undersand the cost and amount of work related to this project should be huge and as a first step is convincing to getting funding.
- What would you do differently? Are there assumptions you disagree with? Do you see ideas for future work or improving the solution proposed? 5-6 sentences
I would ask my self if there is another combination rather than TCAM to improve the design, or for make more convincing the paper a small implementation to demonstrate the concept of the idea works.