RE: VLAN-ID
"Les Bell" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bridge |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
We should not use the value 0 to indicate "any" VLAN, as this may be used by 802.1D Bridges that support Priority Tagging, but do not support 802.1Q VLANs. There is a draft revision of RFC 2674 currently out (which I believe is ready for WG last call, except for editorial issues). We could revise the VlanId and VlanIndex TCs and add VlanIdOrAny, as you have described below, before we do the last call. RFC 2674 uses VlanIndex itself, so we have to keep it. The SYNTAX in the definitions for VlanId and VlanIndex differ slightly from what is currently defined in RFC 2674. Is this going to cause any problems? Les... "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> on 21/02/2003 15:15:37 Sent by: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> To: "Romascanu, Dan , [email protected] cc: [email protected] (Les Bell/GB/3Com) Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VLAN-ID Having seen some discussion. How about if we were to define two generic TCs for this that people will be encouraged to use from now on: VlanId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A 12-bit VLAN ID used in the VLAN Tag header." SYNTAX Integer32 (1..4094) REFERENCE "Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, P802.1Q/D10, chapter 3.13 " VlanIdOrAny ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The value of -1 is used to indicate a wildcard, i.e. any value. " SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094) Or would the VlanIdOrAny better be represented with SYNTAX Integer32 (-1 | 1..4094) where zero represents the wild card ?? Not sure if we should include the VlanIndex from RFC2674. I think it is not as general... but am not sure. If we were to generalize it, then I would think it should look like: VlanIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A value used to index per-VLAN tables: - values of 0 and 4095 are not permitted; - a value between 1 and 4094 inclusive represents an IEEE 802.1Q VLAN-ID with global scope within a given bridged domain (see VlanId textual convention). - a value greater than 4095 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 include them in tables in the same way. " SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4094 | 4096..4294967295) Or should we also use an Integer32 for the last one? Would RFC2674 be the best place to define those? If we were to do the above, then - the framework PIb can keep what they have. At a future revision they can pick up the TC - RFC2613 could still advance as is. I would prefer a new one that uses the new TC, but that new TC will be in a PS, so that would prohibit advancing to DS. So we can do that at a later stage. - RFC2674 gets updated - docsis MIB probably should pick up new TC, or at least define their VlanID the same way as proposed in the TC. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: woensdag 19 februari 2003 18:57 > 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 > > >