Re: Re: dot1dStpPortPriority

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:56:17AM -0700, Michael MacFaden wrote:
>Test:
>
>for (i = 0; i <= 255; i++)
>   set dot1dStpPortPriority.X = i; 
>
>Expected Results:
>
>Device mode   | Mgmt App  | result
>802.1D          802.1D       ok   
>802.1D          802.1t/w     ok  (new apps can know the semantic changes) 
>802.1t/w        802.1D       bad value returned for values  241-255
>
>This appears surprising and I am not sure exactly how inocuous 
>the impact would be using an old 802.1D app against 802.1t/w bridges.
> 
>I would support a semantic change to dot1dStpPortPriority.X if we 
>had had the convention of using capabilities bits as found in
>rfc2674 / dot1dDeviceCapabilities such that a
>1493 based app would query a specific bit to know exactly what mode
>the bridge was in before performing any such set operation.

Bert Wjinen pointed out the draft text says '..in steps of 16' 
so the range for bad values would actually include more than 
the listing I presented above. 

Mike