RE: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt
"David Levi" <dlevi@nortelnetworks.com> Fri, 15 October 2004 16:33 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17996 for <bridge-mib-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CIVCo-0003gD-LU for bridge-mib-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:45:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CIUqE-00016V-1O; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:22:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CIUfj-0005xE-Uy for bridge-mib@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:11:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16633 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com ([47.103.122.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CIUr8-0003Cl-5b for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:23:02 -0400
Received: from zsc3c026.us.nortel.com (zsc3c026.us.nortel.com [47.81.138.26]) by zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i9FGAbt01534; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:10:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by zsc3c026.us.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <T3RHC13R>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:10:37 -0700
Message-ID: <0A11633F61BD9F40B43ABCC694004F93043BCE9B@zsc3c026.us.nortel.com>
From: David Levi <dlevi@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'dbharrington@comcast.net'" <dbharrington@comcast.net>, j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:10:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10dcc25e55b9b5f7d6ded516404bdc4c
Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: bridge-mib.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0945070720=="
Sender: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 07e9b4af03a165a413ec6e4d37ae537b
Hi David, I've updated all the boilerplate text and references, and added the new TCs. Can I get some suggested text for the usage guidelines for the new TCs? You mentioned in a previous e-mail that there were some issues on RT, but I can't find anything there. Any pointers on where to look? -Dave -----Original Message----- From: bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bridge-mib-bounces@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:58 AM To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt Hi Juergen, Some vendors use 0 as "no vlan" and some use 0 as a wildcard. I believe other values are used for other local proprietary purposes. There has been debate about whether the TCs should permit the mib module designer to define special semantics per object, or whether the values should be standardized. I agree some guidelines for usage should be provided. Personally, I think it would be good to standardize the local vlan IDs for use in management, otherwise a manager application would need to know whether it was a box from vendor-A or vendor-B, or which mib module it is used in, to understand the semantics and present the info in a user-friendly manner. RFC2674bis (draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-02.txt) has been a product of this WG, but the draft expired in August. We expect to have a revision published before IETF61, possibly with TCs and usage guidelines included. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net Bridge-mib co-chair -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@iu-bremen.de] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:48 PM To: David B Harrington Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:29:52AM -0400, David B Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt has been submitted to for > publication as an I-D. > Please review this document and comment. > > If you read it and find nothing to which you strongly object, please > say so. If you have concerns about the content, or find typos or > grammar errors, please say so. In RFC 2674, I read the following: VlanIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A value used to index per-VLAN tables: values of 0 and 4095 are not permitted; if the value is between 1 and 4094 inclusive, it represents an IEEE 802.1Q VLAN-ID with global scope within a given bridged domain (see VlanId textual convention). If the value is greater than 4095 then it represents a VLAN with scope local to the particular agent, i.e. one without a global VLAN-ID assigned to it. Such VLANs are outside the scope of IEEE 802.1Q but it is convenient to be able to manage them in the same way using this MIB." SYNTAX Unsigned32 Note the language about values greater than 4095. The VLAN-ID-MIB defines things such as: VlanIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. It is the 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header. The range is defined by the REFERENCEd specification. " REFERENCE "IEEE Std 802.1Q 2003 Edition, Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks. " SYNTAX Integer32 (1..4094) I think we need to speel out guidelines in which situations which TC should be used and why. As it stands, it is kind of confusing for me as an outsider. How are those local scope VLAN IDs used in practice? (I don't think they fit into tagged frames.) > Should this be a separate document, or should it be merged into > rfc2674bis? Please indicate your preference when commenting on the draft. Is there actually a plan to revise RFC 2674? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
_______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.… David B Harrington
- Re: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Bridge-mib] draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.… David Levi