Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 5 Sep 00:47 2003
Picon

VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

So... nobody has reacted to my request for
writeup. So I am preparing to do an ID myself.

This is what I think the discussion boiled down to.

    VlanId            ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
        DISPLAY-HINT "d"
        STATUS        current
        DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN."
        SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094)

    VlanIdOrAny       ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
        DISPLAY-HINT "d"
        STATUS        current
        DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
                      The value of 4095 is used to indicate a wildcard,
                      i.e. any value.
                     "
        SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094 | 4095)

Any comments?

Bert
Juergen Schoenwaelder | 5 Sep 11:05 2003
Picon
Picon

Re: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny


>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> So... nobody has reacted to my request for writeup. So I am
Bert> preparing to do an ID myself.

Bert> This is what I think the discussion boiled down to.

:    VlanIdOrAny       ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
:        DISPLAY-HINT "d"
:        STATUS        current
:        DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
:                      The value of 4095 is used to indicate a wildcard,
:                      i.e. any value.
:                     "
:        SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094 | 4095)

Bert> Any comments?

Perhaps it makes sense to explain somewhere why 0 is not being used
for the wildcard value.

/js

--

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
Juergen Schoenwaelder | 5 Sep 14:12 2003
Picon
Picon

Re: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny


>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> But other than that, may I assume you are OK with it?

yes

/js

--

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 5 Sep 14:04 2003
Picon

RE: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

> :    VlanIdOrAny       ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
> :        DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> :        STATUS        current
> :        DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
> :                      The value of 4095 is used to indicate a wildcard,
> :                      i.e. any value.
> :                     "
> :        SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094 | 4095)
> 
> Bert> Any comments?
> 
> Perhaps it makes sense to explain somewhere why 0 is not being used
> for the wildcard value.
> 
Yep... Need to dig up more on that... 

But other than that, may I assume you are OK with it?

Bert
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
> 
Les Bell | 5 Sep 16:20 2003
Picon

Re: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny


This looks okay to me.

Les...

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen <at> lucent.com> <at> ietf.org on 04/09/2003 23:47:33

Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org

To:   "Bridge-Mib
cc:
Subject:  [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

So... nobody has reacted to my request for
writeup. So I am preparing to do an ID myself.

This is what I think the discussion boiled down to.

   VlanId            ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
       STATUS        current
       DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN."
       SYNTAX        Integer32 (1..4094)

   VlanIdOrAny       ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
       STATUS        current
       DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
                   The value of 4095 is used to indicate a wildcard,
                   i.e. any value.
(Continue reading)

Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 7 Sep 09:29 2003
Picon

FW: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

It seems that in IPCDN, some people would like
to see yet another TC, namely:

    VlanIdOrZero      ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
        DISPLAY-HINT "d"
        STATUS        current
        DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.

                      The value zero is NOT a valid VLAN ID. 

                      When this textual convention is used as the
                      syntax of an object, the object definition
                      MUST specify in the DESCRIPTION clause what
                      the value zero means.
                     "
        SYNTAX        Integer32 (0 | 1..4094)

Does anyone see a problem with that?

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com]
Sent: vrijdag 5 september 2003 0:48
To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
Subject: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

So... nobody has reacted to my request for
writeup. So I am preparing to do an ID myself.
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 7 Sep 10:54 2003

RE: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

So, I guess that the IPCDN people do not need 4095. 

Otherwise, it looks OK to me. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com]
> Sent: 07 September, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> Subject: FW: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> 
> 
> It seems that in IPCDN, some people would like
> to see yet another TC, namely:
> 
>     VlanIdOrZero      ::= TEXTUAL CONVENTION
>         DISPLAY-HINT "d"
>         STATUS        current
>         DESCRIPTION  "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN.
> 
>                       The value zero is NOT a valid VLAN ID. 
>                       
>                       When this textual convention is used as the
>                       syntax of an object, the object definition
>                       MUST specify in the DESCRIPTION clause what
>                       the value zero means.
>                      "
>         SYNTAX        Integer32 (0 | 1..4094)
> 
(Continue reading)

Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 7 Sep 20:13 2003
Picon

RE: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

Not sure if they need it or not, but it would be to
indicate "wildcard", not "none"

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca <at> avaya.com]
> Sent: zondag 7 september 2003 10:55
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> 
> 
> So, I guess that the IPCDN people do not need 4095. 
> 
> Otherwise, it looks OK to me. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen <at> lucent.com]
> > Sent: 07 September, 2003 10:29 AM
> > To: Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
> > Subject: FW: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny
> > 
> > 
> > It seems that in IPCDN, some people would like
> > to see yet another TC, namely:
> > 
(Continue reading)

Andrew Smith | 7 Sep 22:39 2003
Picon

RE: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

Bert,

It seems pointless to me to define a TC where any module that uses it
MUST (or even MAY) add special semantics to one or more of the values.
Why then bother defining the TC at all? We should either define what the
special "none" value is, including its semantics, in the TC definition
or else not define any such TC. I also don't think that the name
"...OrZero" is very helpful: the name should give a hint as to the
semantics, not the syntax, even for a TC name.

N.B. if what IPCDN wants to do is identify the "priority-tagged" frames
permitted by 802.1D/802.1Q (that is frames that carry user_priority
information but no relevant VLAN information) then that should be
handled in one of 2 ways: (a) add 0 as a valid value for VlanId or
VlanIdOrAny or (b) define separate VlanIdOrPriorityOnly and/or
VlanIdOrAnyOrPriorityOnly TCs with ranges (0 | 1..4094) and/or (0 |
1..4094 | 4095) respectively [but I thought in the bridge-mib list
discussions previously, we'd decided that there was no requirement for
the priority-tagged semantics, no?].

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:14 AM
To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; Bridge-Mib (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

Not sure if they need it or not, but it would be to
(Continue reading)

Les Bell | 8 Sep 10:03 2003
Picon

RE: VlanID and VlanIDOrAny


I agree with Andrew on this.  You should define the semantics of the TC more
explicitly, otherwise there seems no value in defining it at all.  One concern I
have here is that VlanIdOrZero, as defined below, could be misused in place of
the VlanIdOrAny.

I can see a possible need for a VlanIdOrNone TC defining the value 0 as
indicating that no VLAN is used; or for the VlanIdOrPriorityOnly, as Andrew
mentions below.  In either of these cases I would accept the value 0 indicating
'No VLAN' or 'Priority Tagged Frame', respectively, as long as it is explicitly
defined as such in the TC.

Les...

"Andrew Smith" <ah_smith <at> acm.org> <at> ietf.org on 07/09/2003 21:39:45

Sent by:  bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org

To:   "'Wijnen, Bert \, "'Bridge-Mib \
cc:
Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] VlanID and VlanIDOrAny

Bert,

It seems pointless to me to define a TC where any module that uses it
MUST (or even MAY) add special semantics to one or more of the values.
Why then bother defining the TC at all? We should either define what the
special "none" value is, including its semantics, in the TC definition
or else not define any such TC. I also don't think that the name
"...OrZero" is very helpful: the name should give a hint as to the
(Continue reading)


Gmane