[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 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!
>
My understanding is the latter, as per the email from Tony.
The new reference is to IEEE.802-1Q.2003 as per the references
section of the I-D. Add on top of that there is expected to be
as per :
----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: donderdag 25 september 2003 0:41
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); 'Les Bell (E-mail)'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dan
Romascanu (E-mail)
Subject: RE: VLAN ID
You can reference my Email copied below (6th June 03), which reflects the
discussion in 802.1's June 03 interim meeting.
Regards,
Tony
At 00:30 25/09/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Thanks. WHat meeting or statement or whatever can I
>reference where the decision was made that 4095 is OK
>as a wildcard value?
>
>Thanks,
>Bert