[Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 07 May 2003 10:01 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 GAA22524 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h47AARV00432 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:10:27 -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 h47AAA800405; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:10:10 -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 h47A5L831894 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:05:21 -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 FAA22431 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 05:55:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DLgX-00070Y-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 05:58:01 -0400
Received: from auemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.223.161] helo=auemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DLgW-00070O-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 05:58:00 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h479wLq17443 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 05:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R1998Q1>; Wed, 7 May 2003 11:58:20 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155018B8786@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
Cc: Andrew Smith <ah_smith@acm.org>, "'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'" <bridge-mib@ietf.org>, mibs@ops.ietf.org, tony@jeffree.co.uk, mick_seaman@ieee.org
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 11:58:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
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>
Any chance you can stirr up that 'ballot' process? Some people are waiting for a solution in IETF MIB land. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > Sent: woensdag 7 mei 2003 9:06 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Andrew Smith; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org; > tony@jeffree.co.uk; mick_seaman@ieee.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > This was discussed at the March meeting. The decision was to > conduct an email > 'ballot' to determine if anyone had any objections to using > 4095 as a wildcard > VLAN ID. I have not heard about the details of how, or when, > this will take > place. > > Les... > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> on 06/05/2003 18:43:42 > > Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> > > > To: Les Bell/GB/3Com, Andrew Smith <ah_smith@acm.org> > cc: "'Wijnen, Bert , "'Bridge-Mib , mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > Les, Did you get any feedback after that March 9th meeting? > If not, Can you poll Mick Seaman? > > Thanks, > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com] > > Sent: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 17:27 > > To: Andrew Smith > > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > > > I have asked for the opinion of the IEEE 802.1 Task Force > > Chair, Mick Seaman, on > > this proposal. He believes that the use of 4095 as a > > wildcard VLAN-ID would be > > okay, but he wants to discuss it formally at the IEEE 802 > > meeting in Dallas > > (week commencing March 9). I will be attending this meeting. > > > > Les... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org> on 27/02/2003 17:53:56 > > > > Sent by: "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org> > > > > > > To: "'Wijnen, Bert \ > > cc: "'Bridge-Mib \, mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID > > > > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > The whole point of defining these TCs in a separate document > > is to serve > > "possible future (yet-undefined) needs" - why else would we > bother to > > break them out in a separate document or module? > > > > The need to use VlanIdOrAny as an index in the future seems > likely to > > me. It is especially likely if you believe that we're > trying to set a > > precedent here for how to represent "some sort of packet field or > > don't-care". Personally, I think it's a bit clunky to > > overload the value > > like this - a separate flag object is more elegant, but, if we're > > comfortable with the overloading, I'd go with Randy and say > (as I did > > before - maybe you missed my message?) that the syntax here > should be > > unsigned, not signed (I understand the practical reasons for the > > non-negative-index restriction in SNMP but it is a limitation on the > > SMIv2 language). I don't think there's a need to consult > with IEEE 802 > > on this - I think most of the people with relevant opinions > > on this are > > already on this thread - but that's the bridge-mib WG chair's > > call if he > > wants to ask himself for help. > > > > My opinions (I know you're looking for others though ...). > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:36 AM > To: Randy Presuhn (E-mail) > Cc: Bridge-Mib (E-mail); mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: VLAn ID > > > Randy, you wrote: > >To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > >cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org (Les Bell/GB/3Com) > >Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > >Hi - > > > >I think it would be better if the "any" value in the *OrAny TC were > >a non-negative value so that the type could be used to define an > >index. There may not be a need today, but thinking ahead to > >representing policy-like things wouldn't hurt. > > > > As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one sofar who > has spoken up on the idea of not having a negative value > for the "any" for the VlanIdOrAny TC that I proposed. > > You do not claim an immediate need, but a possible future > (yet-undefined) need. > > S > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
- [Bridge-mib] VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] Re: VLAn ID Tom Petch
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Andrew Smith
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Tony Jeffree
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID C. M. Heard
- Re: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Les Bell
- RE: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)