OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2008 · paper · Computer science
Proposes OpenFlow, a standardized interface for adding and removing flow-table entries in Ethernet switches, so researchers can run experimental network protocols on campus networks without vendors exposing switch internals. Two Stanford buildings will run it.
Checked: PDF from web.stanford.edu, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
1 finding
Wording "Type 0" is defined by "the four basic actions mentioned above", but the paper lists "the three basic ones (that all dedicated OpenFlow switches must support)" and offers the fourth only as one of two alternatives ("All OpenFlow-enabled switches are required to support one approach or the other").
- p. 3 Section 2, 'Additional features'
the four basic actions mentioned above
- p. 3 Section 2, 'Dedicated OpenFlow switches'
the three basic ones (that all dedicated OpenFlow switches must support) are:
- p. 3 Section 2, 'OpenFlow-enabled switches'
All OpenFlow-enabled switches are required to support one approach or the other; some will support both.
- p. 3 Section 2, Dedicated OpenFlow switches
the three basic ones (that all dedicated OpenFlow switches
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read page 3. Three basic actions are listed as required for dedicated switches. The fourth action is introduced as one of two ways to separate traffic, VLANs being the other, and enabled switches need support only one. The "Additional features" paragraph then defines Type 0 by "the four basic actions". On page 6, Section 4 requires all "OpenFlow-enabled" products to conform to Type 0, and Section 5 offers Type 0 reference designs for dedicated platforms such as NetFPGA. Nothing in the paper reconciles these; it defers to the external specification. Only the authors can say what Type 0 requires.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
9 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Section 2 says of OpenFlow-enabled commercial switches, routers and access points "(we list some examples in Section 5)", but Section 5 names no commercial product or vendor, only "several switch and router manufacturers" and the Linux, OpenWRT and NetFPGA reference designs.
- p. 3 Section 2, 'OpenFlow-enabled switches'
(we list some examples in Section 5)
- p. 6 Section 5
We are actively working with several switch and router manufacturers
- p. 3 Section 2, OpenFlow-enabled switches
(we list some examples in
- p. 6 Section 5
We are actively working with several switch and router
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read Section 5 on page 6. It mentions unnamed manufacturers, the Stanford deployment and research reference designs. It has no list of commercial OpenFlow-enabled devices. The pointer goes to the right section in a loose sense, since the reference designs and deployment could be the intended examples, so this is a minor unfulfilled promise and not a wrong section number.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Section 1 prints "The reduction in real-world impact of any given network innovation is because the enormous installed base of equipment and protocols, and the reluctance to experiment with production traffic, which have created an exceedingly high barrier"; the because-clause is ungrammatical (missing "of", or a stray "which").
- p. 1 Section 1, first paragraph
any given network innovation is because the enormous in-
Judge's note: Read the page 1 image, foot of the left column and top of the right column. The wording is as quoted, with no "of" after "because". It is a grammar slip and the meaning is clear.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The abstract prints "We will work to encourage deployment at other schools; and We encourage you to consider deploying OpenFlow in your university network too.", with a capital "We" in mid-sentence after "; and".
- p. 1 Abstract, last sentence
We will work to encourage deployment at other schools; and We encourage you
- p. 1 Abstract, last sentence
We will work to encourage deployment at other schools; and
- p. 1 Abstract, last sentences
We will work to encourage deployment at other schools; and We encourage you to consider deploying OpenFlow
Judge's note: The page 1 image shows the semicolon, "and" at the end of the line, and a capitalised "We" starting the next line. It is a cosmetic copy-editing slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Section 2 prints "Therefore, later in the paper, define a basic required set of actions for all OpenFlow switches."; the subject "we" is missing.
- p. 2 Section 2, last paragraph on the page
Therefore, later in the paper, define a basic required set of actions
- p. 2 Section 2, last paragraph on page
Therefore, later in the paper, define a basic
- p. 2 Section 2, last paragraph of column
Therefore, later in the paper, define a basic required set of actions for all OpenFlow switches.
Judge's note: The page 2 image, last paragraph of the right column, shows the sentence exactly as quoted with no subject. The evident fix is "we define".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Stray space after the hyphen in mid-line compounds: "adds a flow- entry in each switch" (Section 3) and "a new call- handoff mechanism" (Example 3).
- p. 4 Section 3, first paragraph
adds a flow- entry in each switch
- p. 5 Section 3.2, Example 3
a new call- handoff
- p. 4 Section 3, first paragraph
and adds a flow- entry in each switch along the path
Judge's note: On the page 4 image, "and adds a flow- entry in each switch along the path" sits mid-line with a visible gap after the hyphen. On the page 5 image, "a new call- handoff" is likewise mid-line. Neither is an end-of-line hyphenation. The paper prints "flow-entry" without a space elsewhere.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The conclusion prints "deploying OpenFlow networks in our campusses"; the paper spells the word "campuses" elsewhere.
- p. 6 Section 6, second paragraph
our campusses
- p. 6 Section 6, second paragraph
our campusses, we hope that OpenFlow will gradually catch-
- p. 6 Conclusion
in our campusses
- p. 6 Conclusion
deploying OpenFlow networks in our campusses
Judge's note: The page 6 image shows "campusses" in the second paragraph of Section 6. Section 1 on page 1 has "college campuses" and "other campuses". The "Flow Switches" point that one reviewer attached to this cluster is handled under C010.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The abbreviation is capitalised two ways on page 5: "VoIP phones are not allowed to" in Example 1, but "Mobile wireless VOIP clients." and "VOIP clients establish" in Example 3.
- p. 5 Section 3.2, Example 1
“VoIP phones are not allowed to
- p. 5 Section 3.2, Example 3
Mobile wireless VOIP clients.
Judge's note: The page 5 image shows "VoIP" in Example 1 and "VOIP" in both the heading and the body of Example 3. It is a cosmetic inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference [8] prints "Martin Casadao" while reference [7] prints "Martin Casado" for what is evidently the same author.
- p. 6 References, [8]
Martin Casadao
- p. 6 References, [7]
Martin Casado
- p. 6 References, [8]
Pfaff, Martin Casadao, Nick McKeown, Scott Shenker,
- p. 6 References, [7]
Martin Casado, Michael J. Freedman, Justin Pettit,
Judge's note: The page 6 image shows "Martin Casado" in [7] and "Martin Casadao" in [8]. The two entries share co-authors (Pettit, McKeown, Shenker), and the text describes NOX as a follow-on to Ethane, so they are the same person. This is an inconsistency inside the paper; the spelling in [7] is taken as the intended one.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference [2] prints the author list as "Mark Handley Orion Hodson Eddie Kohler." with no commas or "and" between the three names.
- p. 6 References, [2]
Mark Handley Orion Hodson Eddie Kohler.
Judge's note: The page 6 image shows the three names run together without separators. Every other entry in the list separates authors with commas. It is a cosmetic slip.
Second check: none (judge only)