[Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Tue, 07 October 2003 07:16 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21778 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 03:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6m4h-0002Fm-5T for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:16:05 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h977G3WJ008662 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 03:16:03 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6m4f-0002FU-Vc; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:16:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A6VPD-0005qF-Vt for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:28:08 -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 JAA29321 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6VPC-0005AD-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:28:06 -0400
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161] helo=ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A6VPB-000590-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:28:05 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h96DRVn16069 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:27:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <TFQWS70X>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:26:41 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15502A203AC@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Kristine Adamson <adamson@us.ibm.com>, mibs@ops.ietf.org
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:26:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt
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>

> 
> Hello!
>    We would like to use the new VLAN ID TCs in this document but have a
> question about the meaning of the 4095 value.  The following is from an
> append to this mailing list in July, 2003:
> 
>    I agree that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.
> 
>    Les...
> 
>    "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>@ietf.org on 07/06/2003 04:07:22
> 
>    Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
> 
> 
>    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
> 
> Given this update, is the referenced IEEE spec being updated to state that
> 4095 is a valid VLAN ID value?  Or it is just going to indicate that 4095
> can be used by SNMP as a valid VLAN ID value, to mean _any_ VLAN ID value
> from 1-4094?  Thanks!
> 
My understanding is the latter, as per the email from Tony.
The new reference is to IEEE.802-1Q.2003 as per the references
section of the I-D. Add on top of that there is expected to be
as per :
----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: donderdag 25 september 2003 0:41
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); 'Les Bell (E-mail)'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dan
Romascanu (E-mail)
Subject: RE: VLAN ID


You can reference my Email copied below (6th June 03), which reflects the 
discussion in 802.1's June 03 interim meeting.

Regards,
Tony

At 00:30 25/09/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Thanks. WHat meeting or statement or whatever can I
>reference where the decision was made that 4095 is OK
>as a wildcard value?
>
>Thanks,
>Bert

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