Hi,
I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the
IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is
supported on each provider bridge port.
In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not required for point-to-point
VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q
rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7.
" The Learning Process receives the source MAC
Addresses and VIDs of received frames from the
Forwarding Process, following the application of the
ingress rules (8.6.2). It shall create or
update a
Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3)
that specifies the reception Port for the frame’s source address and
VID, if
and only if the
source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, the
resulting number of
entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering
Database, and the filtering utility
criteria for the
receiving Bridge Port are met."
The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied
if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at
least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its member
set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the reception
Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. NOTE —The
third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".
I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to
ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC,
I suggest being more precise and specify
that we are talking on point-to-point
connections.
Regards,
Nurit.
-----Original Message-----
From:
gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don
Fedyk
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16
To: Adrian Farrel;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject:
RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE
Hi Adrian
The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a
comment I made.
My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE
documents and the
liaison is that the translation is valid in the
context of forwarding
based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that
V-LAN is optional
MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as
specified is not equal
to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not
just the format of
'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the
entities such as MAC
relay as well.
I think we should also ask in our liaison for
clarification if the
S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a
label agnostic to
the MAC so there is no
confusion.
Thanks,
Don
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> All,
>
> The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the
subject of
> 802.1 Ethernet
>
> You can see the liaison
at
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf
>
> The participants on the GELS mailing list have
requested that
> we respond to this to clarify an
issue.
>
> Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed
to send.
> Please shout at once if you have any concerns
with this
> liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on
Monday of next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> ===
> Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE
802.1Q VLAN tags"
>
> Date: Sep 2006
> To: IEEE802.1
> Tony Jeffree, IEEE
802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk
>
> From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison
to IEEE 802.1
>
Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair
>
Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group
co-chair
>
> Cc: Bernard Aboba
bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> Ross
Callon rcallon@juniper.net
> Bill
Fenner fenner@research.att.com
> CCAMP
mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> GELS
mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org
>
> Thank you for your very informative and
clarifying liaison on
> "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN
tags".
>
> We have a question arising from this liaison and
our reading
> of the relevant standards documents as
follows.
>
> The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN
tags (with 12
> bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service
interfaces, as an
> option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging
amendment
> to IEEE Std 802.1Q."
>
> While this text in itself is clear it leaves open
the
> question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces"
is the only
> type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q
S-VLAN tags is
> supported.
>
> It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad
does not
> preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at
any
> S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would
be allowed
> at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer
Network Ports.
>
> Can you please confirm whether this is the
correct
> interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment
to the IEEE
> Std 802.1Q?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE
802.1
> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working
Group co-chairs
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
gels mailing list
gels@rtg.ietf.org
https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels