RE: VLAN-ID

That's a similar semantics with the one in the framework PIB. They just picked -1 as their special semantics value, while DOCSIS picked zero. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:52 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
> 
> 
> Dan, Bert, 
> 
> DOCSIS uses the Vlan Mask in a packet classification scheme where the
> value zero means the VLAN-ID is not analyzed to match the 
> tagged packet.
> 
> As operations, The Vlan value is set in the CM config file, 
> if not used
> in the config file, a default value of zero means don't care 
> 
> For the DOCS-QOS-MIB 
> Would be possible to subtype the VlanId TC as 
> 
> docsQosPktClassVlanId OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX VlanId INTEGER (0..4094)
> Or 
> SYNTAX VlanId INTEGER (0 | 1..4094)
> .....
> 
> Or a new TC zeroOrVlanId
> With ;
> SYNTAX INTEGER (0 | 1..4094)
> 
> 
> 
> Eduardo
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:57 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> I suggest to take the discussion to the mibs list. The interest is
> broader than Bridge MIB, as demonstrated by the number of 
> MIBs that deal
> with VLAN ID objects.
> 
> To the point: 
> - It looks that definitions in 
> draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-01.txt, RFC 2613
> and RFC 2674 (VlanId) are similar. A common TC can be easily 
> defined, by
> taking the RFC 2674 VlanId TC and adding the REFERENCE as in 
> RFC 2613. 
> - I do not know what is the reason DOCSIS supports value 0. 
> - The framework PIB have added a special value -1, with a separate
> semantics (ignore VLAN in the filter). 
> - VlanIndex in RFC2674 also has a different semantics. 
> 
> Side issue -  if a TC can be easily written and agreed (after some cat
> beating) - what will we be doing with documents already on 
> the standards
> track? RFC 2613 is supposed to be advanced from PS to DS 'as is'. You
> can buy a beer to the author and have a new document issued, but will
> such a change prevent advancement of the document on the 
> standard track?
> If yes, is this really worth?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:14 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID
> > 
> > 
> > Bridgemibbers....
> > 
> > I do not see much (if any activity lately) :-(
> > 
> > But I have a question.
> > 
> > I see a VLAN ID represented in various forms:
> > 
> > - draft-ietf-bridge-ext-v2-01.txt
> >     VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >        STATUS      current
> >        DESCRIPTION "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header."
> >        SYNTAX      INTEGER (1..4094)
> > - somehwere I found:
> >     dot1vProtocolPortGroupVid OBJECT-TYPE
> >        SYNTAX      INTEGER (1..4094)
> >        MAX-ACCESS  read-create
> >        STATUS      current
> >        DESCRIPTION "The VID associated with a group of protocols for
> >                     each port."
> >        REFERENCE   "IEEE 802.1v clause 8.4.4, 12.10.1.2"
> > 
> > - In a DOCSIS document I find:
> >     docsQosPktClassVlanId OBJECT-TYPE
> >        SYNTAX          Integer32 (0..4095)
> >        MAX-ACCESS      read-only
> >        STATUS          current
> > 
> > - In the framework PIB (draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-09.txt) I find:
> > 
> >   frwk802FilterVlanId OBJECT-TYPE
> >       SYNTAX         Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094)
> >       STATUS         current
> >       DESCRIPTION
> >           "The VLAN ID (VID) that uniquely identifies a VLAN
> >           within the device. This VLAN may be known or unknown
> >           (i.e., traffic associated with this VID has not yet
> >           been seen by the device) at the time this entry
> >           is instantiated.
> > 
> >           Setting the frwk802FilterVlanId object to -1 
> indicates that
> >           VLAN data should not be considered during traffic
> >           classification."
> > 
> > - In rfc2613 I find:
> >    smonVlanIdStatsId OBJECT-TYPE
> >     SYNTAX     Integer32 (1..4094)
> >     MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
> >     STATUS     current
> >     DESCRIPTION
> >         "The unique identifier of the VLAN monitored for
> >          this specific statistics collection.
> > 
> >         Tagged packets match the VID for the range between 
> 1 and 4094.
> >         An external RMON probe MAY detect VID=0 on an Inter Switch
> >         Link, in which case the packet belongs to a VLAN 
> determined by
> >         the PVID of the ingress port. The VLAN to which 
> such a packet
> >         belongs can be determined only by a RMON probe 
> internal to the
> >         switch."
> >     REFERENCE
> >         "Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks,
> >           P802.1Q/D10, chapter 3.13"
> > 
> > - In RFC2674 I find:
> >   VlanIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >     STATUS      current
> >     DESCRIPTION
> >         "A value used to index per-VLAN tables: values of 0 and
> >         4095 are not permitted; if the value is between 1 and
> >         4094 inclusive, it represents an IEEE 802.1Q VLAN-ID with
> >         global scope within a given bridged domain (see VlanId
> >         textual convention).  If the value is greater than 4095
> >         then it represents a VLAN with scope local to the
> >         particular agent, i.e. one without a global VLAN-ID
> >         assigned to it. Such VLANs are outside the scope of
> >         IEEE 802.1Q but it is convenient to be able to manage them
> >         in the same way using this MIB."
> >     SYNTAX      Unsigned32
> > 
> > - IN RFC2674 I also find
> >    VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >       STATUS      current
> >       DESCRIPTION
> >           "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header."
> >       SYNTAX      INTEGER (1..4094)
> > 
> > Not sure I found all occurances.
> > 
> > So my question is: what is the CORRECT spec, and could we try to 
> > define one (or a few)  TC(s) that everyone else can IMPORT and use.
> > 
> > Bert
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bridge-mib mailing list
> > [email protected] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>