Subject: [rbridge] Configuration of VLANs vs selfconfiguration

From: michsmit at cisco.com ([email-masked])
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:57:22 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> 
> I'm not sure whether being in more than one VLAN breaks this 
> or is permitted (it seems like it wouldn't be, but I'm not sure).
> 
> However, the step below assumes a preconfigured management function:
> >>- Some management function replies "I do - he's in vlan G"
> 
> That's not zero-config to me; it, like DHCP, just moves the 
> configuration to a central location.

Agreed, another option would be to move the config to the host and use GVRP from the host.  However, VLANs are a topology construct and the VLAN determination is typically determined based on where the device is attached so neither approach would likely become prevalent.  As a side note, GVRP is scarcely used in the campus today, even between switches.

Michael

> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> Gray, Eric wrote:
> > Joe,
> > 
> > 	Last I heard, there was nothing preventing the same MAC address 
> > living in more than one VLAN.  In fact, for routers and 
> VLAN bridges, 
> > wouldn't this be the dominant case?
> > 
> > 	If that has not changed, then the suggested approach 
> will not even 
> > work - independent of whether or not its in scope for what we're 
> > trying to do.
> > 
> > --
> > Eric
> > 
> > ====================================================================
> > While Harald's suggestion is interesting, IMO it would be 
> part of an 
> > rbridge only after it has been developed for bridges first.
> > 
> > This is not an rbridge issue.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > 
> >>--On fredag, september 23, 2005 09:38:53 +0200 Guillermo Ib??ez 
> >><gibanez at it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  IMHO, with this restrictive interpretation of zero 
> configuration we 
> >>>solve only half of the configuration problem.
> >>>  Anyway, if this is the prevalent opinion, I suggest to add  this 
> >>>clarification  to the draft (zero configuration for single 
> LAN, equal 
> >>>configuration for VLANs as standard bridges).
> >>>Guillermo
> >>
> >>
> >>I think you could in theory get close to zeroconf for VLAN 
> membership.
> >>It would go something like:
> >>
> >>- Device attaches
> >>- Bridge broadcasts "who knows this guy" on a reserved "management" 
> >>VLAN
> >>- Some management function replies "I do - he's in vlan G"
> >>- Bridge configures the port to that VLAN
> >>  (or if no reply - to a "default" VLAN)
> >>
> >>(For extra credits, work in where to add 802.1x authentication)
> >>
> >>The only config on the bridge would be what answers to believe 
> >>(security makes complete zeroconf impossible, but we all 
> know that by 
> >>now....)
> >>
> >>But this mechanism would be completely orthogonal to what TRILL is 
> >>about, of course. So this is not the right list to discuss it.
> >>
> >>                       Harald
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>rbridge mailing list
> >>rbridge at postel.org
> >>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> > 
> > 
> > --> -----Original Message-----
> > --> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> > --> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]On
> > --> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> > --> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:21 AM
> > --> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> > --> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Configuration of VLANs vs 
> selfconfiguration
> > --> 
> > --> 
> > --> _______________________________________________
> > --> rbridge mailing list
> > --> rbridge at postel.org
> > --> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> > --> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rbridge mailing list
> > rbridge at postel.org
> > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> 
>