Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:42:01 +0200

Hi Don,
I did not say the that liaison says that the IET should focus on the 12
bit label encoding technique. I said that the IEEE confirmed that the
12-bit S-VID translation is a standard behavior. 
The IETF got a decision not to define the data plane but to get a
confirmation from the IEEE for the standard behavior. This was achieved
regarding the 12-bit label encoding technique and we can go on with the
work already initiated on this.
Regards,
Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Fedyk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14
To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF

Nurit

Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing
about 

"The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique".

It actually states:

"The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are
characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and rules
for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to adjacent
entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as well as by
their local management interface interactions"

In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID
(or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact
on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words
all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to the
impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware.

Regards,
Don 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the 
> same question that  we wanted to ask the IEEE.
> The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard behavior

> is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the 
> 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS.
> Regards,
> Nurit.
> 
<SNIP>

---

From: Lucy Yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:01:37 -0500

Nurit&Don,

It seems that label encoding technique could relate to the data plane
semantics based on your discussions. The question is if IEEE allows and
follows other SDO's standardized VLAN label encoding?

Regards,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Nurit Sprecher
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:42 PM
To: Don Fedyk; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: Nurit Sprecher
Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF

Hi Don,

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Fedyk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14
To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; [email-masked];
[email-masked]

Nurit

It actually states:

Regards,
Don 

<SNIP>

_______________________________________________
gels mailing list
[email-masked]
https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:18:40 +0200

All,

I've been looking at this sentence in the liaison:

Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 bit VIDs) is supported
at S-tagged service interfaces, as an option, by the
IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment to IEEE Std 802.1Q.

Could someone explain if there is a difference between a "S-tagged
service interface" and a "S-tagged interface"?

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]