[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: VLAn ID
Tony... am I copy-ing the mailing lists on which
we discussed this, so that people can chime in
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: vrijdag 6 juni 2003 17:16
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Subject: RE: VLAn ID
>
>
> Bert et al -
>
> We have concluded that the use of 4095 as a wildcard is acceptable to
> 802.1, and we will make any necessary changes to 802.1Q in
> due course to
> relax the current stated restriction. However, we need to
> know whether that
> is all that needs to be done to 802.1Q - i.e., is there any
> need to change
> our definitions of the managed objects in the document (Clause 12) to
> reflect the interpretation of 4095 as a wildcard, or is this
> simply an
> issue for the SNMP machinery to handle?
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> At 11:58 07/05/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> >Any chance you can stirr up that 'ballot' process?
> >Some people are waiting for a solution in IETF MIB land.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bert
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Les Bell [mailto:Les_Bell@eur.3com.com]
> > > Sent: woensdag 7 mei 2003 9:06
> > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > > Cc: Andrew Smith; 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org;
> > > tony@jeffree.co.uk; mick_seaman@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: VLAn ID
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > place.
> > >
> > > Les...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "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?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bert
> > >
> > > > -----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.
> > >
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>