On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 08:51:31AM -0600, Stacy W. Smith wrote: > I hate trying to read IEEE standards, but after a cursory glance I > would agree that the behavior your seeing on the vlan-tagged family > inet interface is not correct. > > I didn't see anything specifying one way or another in the > 802.1AB-2005 (LLDP) standard, but the 802.1Q-2005 standard says this > in Table 9-2: "The null VLAN ID. Indicates that the tag header > contains only priority information; no VLAN identifier is present in > the frame. This VID value shall not be configured as a PVID or a > member of a VID Set, or configured in any Filtering Database entry, > or used in any Management operation." > > I interpret "or used in any Management operation" to exclude the use > of a vlan tag value of 0 for LLDP frames.
I don't interpret it that way--I think they are talking about Management of the switch's VLAN configuration, SNMP, etc, not about the on-the-wire format of any/all management ethernet frames...but then again I only read the excerpt you posted, so perhaps it is clearer in context. > Of course the simple fact that the two different configuration are > producing different frame formats should be enough to get JTAC to > investigate more thoroughly. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly reasonble to expect two different configuration to operate differently :-) I would say that given how JUNOS has typically operated, I would not expect a Layer 3 VLAN interface to participate in any Layer 2 protocols at all--no STP, LLDP, etc. If you want Layer 2 protocols, use a Layer 2 interface with an RVI. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
