Re: RE: VLAn ID
"Les Bell" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bridge |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I agree that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q. Les... "C. M. Heard" <[email protected]>@ietf.org on 07/06/2003 04:07:22 Sent by: [email protected] To: Tony Jeffree <[email protected]> cc: "MIBs , "Bridge-Mib Subject: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID 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 _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib