Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 10:02:17 -0500
From: Paul Langille <langille@nexen.com>
To: p8021@nic.hep.net
Subject: Re:......... Re: REVISION TO SDE
Cc: langille@nexen.com, 100271.522@compuserve.com

> Paul -
> 
> In response to your points:
> 
> >	I guess I don't see the harm in exploring further 802.10 style
> >tagging. I believe we all agree with the need to support port based
> >VLANs. (We at least have this as a requirement.) We also need to
> >support port based VLANs over backbones. One way to provide this
> >support is with tagging. It would be nice if this tagging could
> >(optionally!) work in conjunction with some type of security.
> 
> I can see considerable harm in us getting hung up on exploring one part of the
> solution space before we are real clear on what problem(s) we want solution(s)
> to.  The harm is (at least) twofold:
> 1)	Wasted time in 802.1;
> 2)	Confusing signals to the vendor & user community.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony.

	Hi Tony. Well, I guess disagree. I think it is healthy (if not
required!)  to explore the solution space. The key is not to get "hung
up". So I agree with you on this aspect. I look at this as the old
`top down' vs. `bottom up' discussion. I think one needs to iterate
between the two methods. If too much time is spent in either space
then it becomes destructive. So I am certainly not proposing that we
get hung up on one particular aspect.

A few random thoughts:

	I think the discussion over the past few days has been
positive. A lot of good points have been made. (We are exploring!
Let's keep it up!) For example, John Hart raised the issue of
separating the tagging from 802.10. Good point. Do we save anything by
combining VLAN tags with 802.10? On the other hand, is having multiple
tags just too much encapsulation?  (Ummmmm...)

	It seems to me that Martin and Anil have uncovered an
interesting issue. What happens to VLANs in the interim? Do we just
keep going our own way until the standard is done? Will vendors form
alliances and agree to interoperate?  Will this then become the
de-facto standard? And so on.
	It appears that some members need a solution that addresses
their (customer's) needs now. This could be a short term or timely
solution.  If given a solution then maybe these members will stop
trying "to end run the process".  I realize that this VLAN `stuff' is
a complicated problem, but simply telling these members to stop does
not solve the problem.  If everyone feels the process is going too
slow then maybe it should be modified.


			Paul Langille