[rbridge] Configuration of VLANs vs selfconfiguration

[Guillermo Ibáñez]

Guillermo Ibáñez wrote :
  Your proposal is fine, but I think it only covers configuring per-MAC 
belonging to a VLAN, not per-port, and per-port  is the criteria to 
belong to VLAN most related with the bridges,  where the real splitting 
of the physical network into separate virtual networks is done.  Per MAC 
belonging to VLAN can be considered "external" to the bridge, as your 
proposal shows.
Guillermo

 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>--On fredag, september 23, 2005 09:38:53 +0200 Guillermo Ibáñez 
><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
>
>  
>