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

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 12:57:37AM -0400, David B Harrington wrote:

> Some vendors use 0 as "no vlan" and some use 0 as a wildcard. I
> believe other values are used for other local proprietary purposes.
> There has been debate about whether the TCs should permit the mib
> module designer to define special semantics per object, or whether the
> values should be standardized. 
> 
> I agree some guidelines for usage should be provided.  
> 
> Personally, I think it would be good to standardize the local vlan IDs
> for use in management, otherwise a manager application would need to
> know whether it was a box from vendor-A or vendor-B, or which mib
> module it is used in, to understand the semantics and present the info
> in a user-friendly manner.

Well, my concern was about value > 4095 which RFC 2674 explicitely
permits in the VlanIndex TC but not in the VlanId TC and Bert's MIB
module does not discuss this either. In principle, if RFC 2674 is
indeed revised in due time, I think putting the VLAN TCs in an update
of the Q-BRIDGE-MIB probably not a bad thing. But even then it needs 
to be spelled out clearly which TC should be used in which situation.
However, if the Q-BRIDGE-MIB update ends up taking years to be
finalized, then going forward with Bert's ID might be easier.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany