Re: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt

["Les Bell" <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>]

I just thought I would check what changes are required to 802.1Q for this.  Both
Tony Jeffree (the chair of IEEE 802.1) and myself agree that this is a very
minor change.  This will be to allow the use of 4095 as a wildcard to match any
VLAN in MIB operations.  But it looks like 802.1Q may not get revised this year,
as originally thought.  (FYI.  802.1ad is the Provider Bridges project, which is
not likely to be completed this year.)

Les...

---------------------- Forwarded by Les Bell/GB/3Com on 08/10/2003 09:12
---------------------------


Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> on 06/10/2003 20:24:01

Sent by:  Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk>


To:   Les Bell/GB/3Com
cc:
Subject:  Re: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt




Les -

I believe that is the only change. I have it on the list for maintenance;
however, it is likely that the maintenance activity (actually a revision
PAR now) will be held over till we've finished messing with 802.1ad.

Regards,
Tony

At 10:50 06/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:



>Tony,
>
>Am I right in thinking that the only change we need to make to 802.1Q, re the
>use of 4095 as a wild card value for SNMP MIBs, is to the statement on
>Table 9-2
>(p.69 of the book)?
>
>Are you planning on making any other changes?
>
>Les...
>
>---------------------- Forwarded by Les Bell/GB/3Com on 06/10/2003 10:38
>---------------------------
>
>
>Kristine Adamson <adamson@us.ibm.com> on 03/10/2003 18:29:23
>
>Sent by:  Kristine Adamson <adamson@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>To:   mibs@ops.ietf.org
>cc:    (Les Bell/GB/3Com)
>Subject:  draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hello!
>    We would like to use the new VLAN ID TCs in this document but have a
>question about the meaning of the 4095 value.  The following is from an
>append to this mailing list in July, 2003:
>
>    I agree that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.
>
>    Les...
>
>    "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>@ietf.org on 07/06/2003 04:07:22
>
>    Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
>
>
>    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?
>
>    //cmh
>
>Given this update, is the referenced IEEE spec being updated to state that
>4095 is a valid VLAN ID value?  Or it is just going to indicate that 4095
>can be used by SNMP as a valid VLAN ID value, to mean _any_ VLAN ID value
>from 1-4094?  Thanks!
>
>
>Kristine Adamson
>IBM Communications Server for MVS: TCP/IP Development
>Internet e-mail:adamson@us.ibm.com

Regards,
Tony