[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
I agree that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.
"C. M. Heard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>@ietf.org on 07/06/2003 04:07:22
Sent by: email@example.com
To: Tony Jeffree <firstname.lastname@example.org>
cc: "MIBs , "Bridge-Mib
Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, in a message forwarded by Bert Wijnen,
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> 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?
After a quick look at 802.1Q-1998, 802.1u-2001, and 802.1v-2001 it
appears to me that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.
Can any Bridge-Mib folk confirm that?
Bridge-mib mailing list