[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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.
Randy
> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; <bridge-mib@ietf.org>
> Cc: <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:15 AM
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
>
> 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