Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:00:05 +0100

Nurit.....precision is indeed important.  In a co mode layer network
connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of
multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer
network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p
link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network
is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network (though it will
be supported by a trail which is provided by a connection in some lower
layer network).
 
regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher
Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38
To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel
Cc: [email-masked]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email-masked]; Nurit
Sprecher
Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE

Hi,

I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and get once
and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is supported on
each provider bridge port. 

In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not required
for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5 already includes
this extension in section 8.7. 

" The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and VIDs of
received frames from the

Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress rules
(8.6.2). It shall create or update a

Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception Port for
the frame's source address and VID, if

and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a
Group Address, the resulting number of

entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, and the
filtering utility criteria for the

receiving Bridge Port are met."

The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at least one
VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least one
other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its member
set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the
reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third
Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the member
set.". 

I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the IEEE
about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I suggest
being more precise and specify that we are talking on point-to-point
connections.

Regards,

Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Don Fedyk
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16
To: Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE

Hi Adrian

The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I made.   

My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the

liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding

based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is optional

MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not equal

to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of

'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as MAC

relay as well.  

I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the

S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to

the MAC so there is no confusion.

Thanks,

Don

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [email-masked] 

> All,

> 

> The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of 

> 802.1 Ethernet

> 

> You can see the liaison at

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf

> 

> The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that 

> we respond to this to clarify an issue.

> 

> Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send. 

> Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this 

> liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week.

> 

> Thanks,

> Adrian

> ===

> Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags"

> 

> Date: Sep 2006

> To: IEEE802.1

>      Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, [email-masked]

> 

> From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1

>           Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair

>           Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair

> 

> Cc: Bernard Aboba [email-masked]

>        Ross Callon [email-masked]

>        Bill Fenner [email-masked]

>        CCAMP mailing list [email-masked]

>        GELS mailing list  [email-masked]

> 

> Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on 

> "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags".

> 

> We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading 

> of the relevant standards documents as follows.

> 

> The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 

> bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an 

> option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment 

> to IEEE Std 802.1Q."

> 

> While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the 

> question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only 

> type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is 

> supported.

> 

> It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not 

> preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any 

> S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed 

> at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports.

> 

> Can you please confirm whether this is the correct 

> interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE 

> Std 802.1Q?

> 

> Many thanks,

> 

> Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1

> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs

> 

> 

> 

> 

_______________________________________________

gels mailing list

[email-masked]

https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels