Re: 10G ethernet and 802.1q

While we could probably continue to look into more more depth and in a
court-hearing-style technicalities, we are still speculating on what did the
original author mean by that statement. And that would also be a point
against that author for not being specific enough.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Paul Cosgrove <paul.cosgrove_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Pavel, the link helps to clarify my point. MST is defined in
> 802.1Q, and it is likely that the quote is referring to that. With that in
> mind perhaps your judgement of the author may be a little harsh. While the
> last amendments were made to 802.1Q in 2005, that is now four years old.
> There are various other draft amendments which are likely to be added in
> the next version of the standard (see 802.1Qau, 802.1Qbb etc). As network
> usage patterns and requirements change, the standards change to support
> them.
>
> I do not think it is correct to say that 802.1w replaced 802.1d. 802.1w
> was the name of the proposed ammendment to 802.1d. 802.1d-2004 amended
> 802.1d so that STP was removed from the spec, and RSTP replaced STP. See
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1w.html
> "This supplement to ISO/IEC 15802-3:1998 (IEEE Std 802.1D-1998) defines the
> changes necessary to the operation of a MAC Bridge in order to provide rapid
> reconfiguration capability."
>
> Proposed amendments, such as 802.1s or 802.1w, are defined separately
> before they are incorporated into the standard and I think that is where the
> confusion is arising here.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> Pavel Bykov wrote:
>
>> Paul, to be extremely technical, the current state of .1Q is 802.1Q-2005,
>> which is available here:
>> http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1Q-2005.pdf and it
>> incorporates all of the most recent amendments, including 802.1s, 802.1v,
>> etc. And it is one of the most recent standards out there.
>>
>> In tech talk, I have always heard 802.1Q referring primarily to tagging
>> mechanism and it's properties, not it's manipulation, like spanning trees,
>> classification, management, etc.
>>
>>
>> P.S.: 802.1d was not improved per se, but instead replaced by more
>> advanced
>> 802.1w
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Paul Cosgrove <paul.cosgrove_at_gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The standards are not static if course. There are often proposals to
>>> update
>>> existing standards, or to introduce new ones to replace them. TCP
>>> extensions for high performance were published in 1992; ECN and the
>>> authentication option being more recent examples Changes to 802.1d mean
>>> that it is not as slow as it once was, RSTP having replaced the older STP
>>> in
>>> 2004.
>>>
>>> There have also been various changes to 802.1Q protocol. It was
>>> originally
>>> specified according to the old 802.1d standard, but MSTP was included in
>>> the
>>> ammendments added to the specification in 2003.
>>>
>>> The full context would make it clearer, but perhaps the author is using
>>> layer 3 links with dynamic routing, instead of Layer 2 with MSTP.
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pavel Bykov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> TRILL is the way to go, so is the OTV. but it only builds upon 802.1q,
>>>> and
>>>> does not replace it in any sense.
>>>> Whoever said that "the 802.1q...is old and does not support the high
>>>> bandwidth requirements for new services / applications." is a moron.
>>>> First of all, the sentence does not makes sense. TCP is really old, like
>>>> 30
>>>> years old, but we are not in a hurry to replace it. OLD does not mean
>>>> BAD.
>>>> Second, it does not mention why it does not support the high bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> What author may have meant, if he had any network experience, is that
>>>> 802.1D
>>>> (notice how .1D is not .1Q) is a protocol with many shortcomings,
>>>> including
>>>> slow convergence and absence of load balancing, which has to be provided
>>>> by
>>>> other standards, like 802.1AX, PVST, etc. And that routing will be used.
>>>>
>>>> But 802.1Q has no equal at this time. If you just want to use routing
>>>> then
>>>> that's fine, but it is substantially different than L2 service
>>>> enablement
>>>> which 802.1Q provides.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. forget ISL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Evan Weston <evan_weston_at_hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I went to a Cisco event yesterday and one of the presenters mentioned
>>>>> TRILL
>>>>> https://cisco.hosted.jivesoftware.com/message/2747 thought it was
>>>>> interesting...
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf
>>>>> Of
>>>>> Shahid Ansari
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 4:54 PM
>>>>> To: Hash Aminu
>>>>> Cc: Reza Toghraee; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: 10G ethernet and 802.1q
>>>>>
>>>>> Hash,
>>>>>
>>>>> worked with ISP and havent used ISL ,dot1q is best to go(q in q tunnel)
>>>>> 1q also a standard across different vendors and guaranteed to work
>>>>> between
>>>>> different vendor equipments whereas ISL fails :)
>>>>> regarding the VLANS ,who want to create more than 1K/4k Vlans?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Shahid
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Hash Aminu <hashng_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Reza/Shahid,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while i will agree with you that most of them are implying to cisco
>>>>>> solution, I am aware of using 802.1q in cisco Gears can be less
>>>>>> scalable
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the # of VLANs grows..hence you will run out of virtual ports (total #
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Vlans passing thru a .1q trunk X the number of ports)..mostly the
>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 6k per any line card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hash
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Pavel Bykov
----------------
Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value of
your certifications. Sign the petition at http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net