Wed, 15 April 2015 23:04 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20150415230459.23538.22081.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Date: (the original message had no date)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 06:04:59 -0000
aa08413; 31 May 95 16:57 EDT Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08409; 31 May 95 16:57 EDT Received: from hp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16348; 31 May 95 16:57 EDT Received: from hprnd.rose.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.15/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA299003862; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:57:43 -0700 Received: from hprnlkk.rose.hp.com by hprnd.rose.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.14/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA250473852; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:57:32 -0700 Received: by hprnlkk.rose.hp.com (1.38.193.4/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA15073; Wed, 31 May 1995 13:57:03 -0700 Sender:ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US From: Karen Kimball <karenk@hprnlkk.rose.hp.com> Message-Id: <9505312057.AA15073@hprnlkk.rose.hp.com> Subject: re: Getting Started To: vgmib@hprnd.rose.hp.com Date: Wed, 31 May 95 13:57:03 PDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] > - IANA has currently assigned a single ifType for VG interfaces. > Is this sufficient, or should we have different ifTypes for > ethernet and token ring framing modes? I'd suggest two different types. If you've got a bridge doing VG, and it's doing BOTH flavors of VG, you'd definitely want to distinquish between those two interfaces as being more than just 'generic' VG. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * Karen Kimball * * Hewlett Packard * * HP Roseville Networks Division * * Email: karenk@hprnd.rose.hp.com * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~