[Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID

"Les Bell" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com> Wed, 07 May 2003 07:09 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18795 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:09:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h477I3119017 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:18:03 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h477Hu818978; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:17:57 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h477Ck818760 for <bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:12:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18700 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2003 03:03:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIzZ-0005xZ-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 03:05:29 -0400
Received: from ip-161-71-171-238.corp-eur.3com.com ([] helo=columba.www.eur.3com.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DIzY-0005xW-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2003 03:05:29 -0400
Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM []) by columba.www.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id h4777aRG024272; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:07:37 +0100 (BST)
Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM []) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id h4777sx26247; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:07:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256D1F.00270A4D ; Wed, 7 May 2003 08:06:25 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM
From: "Les Bell" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.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
Message-ID: <80256D1F.0027083B.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:05:51 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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>

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


"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?


> -----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.


Bridge-mib mailing list