Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] RE: VLAn ID

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:10:06 +0100

I agree that no changes are required to clause 12 of 802.1Q.

Les...

"C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 07/06/2003 04:07:22

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   Tony Jeffree <[email-masked]>
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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib