IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 09 June 2003 07:32 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23317 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h597WSW08132 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:32:28 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h597UBB08064; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:30:11 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5737cB21874 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:07:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22613 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OU1Q-0000tY-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 23:05:36 -0400
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OU1P-0000tV-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 23:05:35 -0400
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5737Np19849; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 20:07:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:07:22 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
cc: "MIBs (E-mail)" <mibs@ops.ietf.org>, "Bridge-Mib (E-mail)" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501BC2985@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10306062002480.19017-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
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>

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, in a message forwarded by Bert Wijnen,
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> We have concluded that the use of 4095 as a wildcard is
> acceptable to 802.1, and we will make any necessary changes to
> 802.1Q in due course to relax the current stated restriction.
> However, we need to know whether that is all that needs to be
> done to 802.1Q - i.e., is there any need to change our
> definitions of the managed objects in the document (Clause 12)
> to reflect the interpretation of 4095 as a wildcard, or is this
> simply an issue for the SNMP machinery to handle?

After a quick look at 802.1Q-1998, 802.1u-2001, and 802.1v-2001 it
appears to me that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.

Can any Bridge-Mib folk confirm that?

//cmh

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email