| Author |
Message |
Christopher Nelson
Guest
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:14 am Post subject:
To GVRP or not to GVRP? |
|
|
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/group/comp.dcom.lans.ethernet/msg/ff9bcb9713b76932
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anoop
Guest
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject:
Re: To GVRP or not to GVRP? |
|
|
Christopher Nelson wrote:
| Quote: | 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/group/comp.dcom.lans.ethernet/msg/ff9bcb9713b76932
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sean
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:27 am Post subject:
Re: To GVRP or not to GVRP? |
|
|
anoop wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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...
| Quote: | 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
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anoop
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: To GVRP or not to GVRP? |
|
|
sean wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
|