Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

IEEE 802.1Q seems to be pretty clear on GVRP being a requirement for
VLANs (certainly to claim 802.1Q compliance) and I don't know of
another mechanism for switches to communicate VLANs registration and
configuration information.  But I found this article:
 
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 9713b76932
 
which says GVRP isn't widely deployed.  If VLAN requires GVRP, then
that implies VLAN isn't widely deployed.  Which seems wrong.  I imagine
I'm missing something.  Can anyone shine some light on this for me?
Thanks.
 
                                        Chris

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Christopher Nelson wrote:
> IEEE 802.1Q seems to be pretty clear on GVRP being a requirement for
> VLANs (certainly to claim 802.1Q compliance) and I don't know of
> another mechanism for switches to communicate VLANs registration and
> configuration information.  But I found this article:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 9713b76932
>
> which says GVRP isn't widely deployed.  If VLAN requires GVRP, then
> that implies VLAN isn't widely deployed.  Which seems wrong.  I
imagine
> I'm missing something.  Can anyone shine some light on this for me?
 
GVRP is a protocol used for dynamic _propagation_ of VLAN configuration
from edge (either end-station or switch) to the core.  This means that
the edge must first be configured by hand.  Most administrators won't
trust end-stations with configuring the network, so I would doubt that
are any significant deployments of GVRP in end-stations.
 
802.1Q requires implementation of GVRP to be fully conformant.  Almost
all switches do implement GVRP but for some reason it hasn't been
widely deployed.  Most network administrators prefer to hand-configure
VLAN membership all the way from edge to core.  Use of VLANs doesn't
_require_ GVRP.  GVRP was put in there to make the job of configuration
easier, but most people don't use it.  It's kind of like having a
dynamic
routing protocol but choosing to use static routes instead.
 
Anoop

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

anoop wrote:
 
> 802.1Q requires implementation of GVRP to be fully conformant.  
 
I've been using (setting up, cinfiguring) vlans for about 7 years now,  
and I had never even heard of GVRP until about 2 years ago.
 
> Almost
> all switches do implement GVRP
 
  Really? Not any of my nortel (baystack 450 and 350) or any of the old  
cabletron switches (don't recall models) I had at my last job. Oddly  
enough one of my higer end Netgear switches does support it...
 
> but for some reason it hasn't been
> widely deployed.  Most network administrators prefer to hand-configure
> VLAN membership all the way from edge to core.  Use of VLANs doesn't
> _require_ GVRP.  GVRP was put in there to make the job of configuration
> easier, but most people don't use it.  It's kind of like having a
> dynamic
> routing protocol but choosing to use static routes instead.
>  
> Anoop
>

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sean wrote:
> anoop wrote:
>
> > 802.1Q requires implementation of GVRP to be fully conformant.
>
> I've been using (setting up, cinfiguring) vlans for about 7 years
now,
> and I had never even heard of GVRP until about 2 years ago.
 
It's been around since 1998 and per IEEE 802.1Q-1998, it is
mandatory.
 
>
> > Almost
> > all switches do implement GVRP
>
>   Really? Not any of my nortel (baystack 450 and 350) or any of the
old
> cabletron switches (don't recall models) I had at my last job. Oddly
> enough one of my higer end Netgear switches does support it...
 
When were these switches built?  I'm guessing (but don't know for a
fact) that most mid- to high-end switches built after 1998 would have
GVRP just to satisfy compliance to IEEE 802.1Q.
 
Anoop