RE: Review of draft-ietf-radext-vlan-02.txt

["Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve)" <paul.congdon@hp.com>]

Yes, actually, the more I think about this the more I agree that we
probably need some additional text here because things are not as simple
as they seem...  The draft is not very clear about how we are
programming the PVID (ingress untagged VLAN) verses the egress list
(tagged and untagged VLANs on egress). This is a very subtle detail
about VLANs that probably needs to be made more obvious...  

There are a number of question... If there are multiple untagged VLANs,
which one is supposed to be used for the PVID (ingress)?  Is that the
one that is configured by the Tunnel attributes specified by RFC 3580?
What happens if the same VLAN is listed in this attributed?  What
happens if it is tagged in this attribute and specified as untagged in
the Tunnel attribute?

I think I'm going to want to consult some of the experts in 802.1 before
proposing text here...

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:11 AM
> To: Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve); Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-radext-vlan-02.txt
> 
> >Yes you are missing the subtle fact that it is only possible to 
> >classify a single port-based untagged VLAN in ingress.  
> There is only 
> >one PVID per port to map incoming untagged frames to, but 
> there may be 
> >several untagged VLANs on egress.
> 
> Would it be possible to craft some text to describe this?
> 
> 
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>