RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Fri, 21 February 2003 15:17 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 KAA03017 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:17:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1LFOHL30052 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:24:17 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1LFO9p30029; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:24:09 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1LFJVp29827 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:19:31 -0500
Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02839 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:11:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h1LFFhM24292 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:15:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <DVZN5ZX5>; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:15:39 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155F7C51F@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, bridge-mib@ietf.org
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:15:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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>
Having seen some discussion. How about if we were to define two generic TCs for this that people will be encouraged to use from now on: VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header." SYNTAX Integer32 (1..4094) REFERENCE "Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, P802.1Q/D10, chapter 3.13 " VlanIdOrAny ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The value of -1 is used to indicate a wildcard, i.e. any value. " SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094) Or would the VlanIdOrAny better be represented with SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094) where zero represents the wild card ?? Not sure if we should include the VlanIndex from RFC2674. I think it is not as general... but am not sure. If we were to generalize it, then I would think it should look like: VlanIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A value used to index per-VLAN tables: - values of 0 and 4095 are not permitted; - a value between 1 and 4094 inclusive represents an IEEE 802.1Q VLAN-ID with global scope within a given bridged domain (see VlanId textual convention). - a value greater than 4095 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 include them in tables in the same way. " SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4094 | 4096..4294967295) Or should we also use an Integer32 for the last one? Would RFC2674 be the best place to define those? If we were to do the above, then - the framework PIb can keep what they have. At a future revision they can pick up the TC - RFC2613 could still advance as is. I would prefer a new one that uses the new TC, but that new TC will be in a PS, so that would prohibit advancing to DS. So we can do that at a later stage. - RFC2674 gets updated - docsis MIB probably should pick up new TC, or at least define their VlanID the same way as proposed in the TC. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: woensdag 19 februari 2003 18:57 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); bridge-mib@ietf.org > Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > Bert, > > I suggest to take the discussion to the mibs list. The > interest is broader than Bridge MIB, as demonstrated by the > number of MIBs that deal with VLAN ID objects. > > To the point: > - It looks that definitions in > draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-01.txt, RFC 2613 and RFC 2674 > (VlanId) are similar. A common TC can be easily defined, by > taking the RFC 2674 VlanId TC and adding the REFERENCE as in > RFC 2613. > - I do not know what is the reason DOCSIS supports value 0. > - The framework PIB have added a special value -1, with a > separate semantics (ignore VLAN in the filter). > - VlanIndex in RFC2674 also has a different semantics. > > Side issue - if a TC can be easily written and agreed (after > some cat beating) - what will we be doing with documents > already on the standards track? RFC 2613 is supposed to be > advanced from PS to DS 'as is'. You can buy a beer to the > author and have a new document issued, but will such a change > prevent advancement of the document on the standard track? If > yes, is this really worth? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:14 PM > > To: bridge-mib@ietf.org > > Subject: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID > > > > > > Bridgemibbers.... > > > > I do not see much (if any activity lately) :-( > > > > But I have a question. > > > > I see a VLAN ID represented in various forms: > > > > - draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-01.txt > > VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header." > > SYNTAX INTEGER (1..4094) > > - somehwere I found: > > dot1vProtocolPortGroupVid OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX INTEGER (1..4094) > > MAX-ACCESS read-create > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION "The VID associated with a group of protocols for > > each port." > > REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1v clause 8.4.4, 12.10.1.2" > > > > - In a DOCSIS document I find: > > docsQosPktClassVlanId OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Integer32 (0..4095) > > MAX-ACCESS read-only > > STATUS current > > > > - In the framework PIB (draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-09.txt) I find: > > > > frwk802FilterVlanId OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094) > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "The VLAN ID (VID) that uniquely identifies a VLAN > > within the device. This VLAN may be known or unknown > > (i.e., traffic associated with this VID has not yet > > been seen by the device) at the time this entry > > is instantiated. > > > > Setting the frwk802FilterVlanId object to -1 > indicates that > > VLAN data should not be considered during traffic > > classification." > > > > - In rfc2613 I find: > > smonVlanIdStatsId OBJECT-TYPE > > SYNTAX Integer32 (1..4094) > > MAX-ACCESS not-accessible > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "The unique identifier of the VLAN monitored for > > this specific statistics collection. > > > > Tagged packets match the VID for the range between > 1 and 4094. > > An external RMON probe MAY detect VID=0 on an Inter Switch > > Link, in which case the packet belongs to a VLAN > determined by > > the PVID of the ingress port. The VLAN to which > such a packet > > belongs can be determined only by a RMON probe > internal to the > > switch." > > REFERENCE > > "Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, > > P802.1Q/D10, chapter 3.13" > > > > - In RFC2674 I find: > > 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 > > > > - IN RFC2674 I also find > > VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > > STATUS current > > DESCRIPTION > > "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header." > > SYNTAX INTEGER (1..4094) > > > > Not sure I found all occurances. > > > > So my question is: what is the CORRECT spec, and could we try > > to define one (or a few) TC(s) that everyone else can IMPORT > > and use. > > > > Bert > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Mike MacFaden
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Andrew Smith
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Eduardo Cardona
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Eduardo Cardona
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Les Bell
- Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Les Bell
- Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Les Bell
- RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Tom Petch
- Re: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Tom Petch