Talk:IEEE 802.1ad/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about IEEE 802.1ad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Help!!!
Needs fixing. 1) While browsing through wiki I found another page on the same subject, but lost the link. Can't find it in my history. The other page and this need to be combined. 2) The links for this page aren't set up right on other pages Metro Ethernet, Carrier Ethernet, IEEE 802.1Q for example.
--Shmelyova (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Description incorrect
The descriptions of outer and inner tag are/were incorrect: a new tag is always added in front of the existing tag and will become the new outer tag (see also web reference 1). The graphics are plainly wrong (I work at a networking equipment manufacturer). I will correct the text but the article will then need someone updating the graphics (in vector format please, not JPEG!) -- WikiReviewer.de (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(reply, Shmelyova) You are correct, outer tag is next to MAC addresses, not payload.
Just to be clear on this point: outer tag is tag 1; inner tag is tag 2 (second tag). Cisco's rewrite command on both the 7600 and the ASR9000 use the keyword "second-dot1q" to refer to the inner tag. Please include a reference if you dispute this.
--Shmelyova (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Merging with IEEE_802.1ad-2005
This article is BAD - and the relevant information should be moved to where it belongs (IEEE_802.1ad-2005) and this page expunged. For a start - there IS NO 802.1QinQ standard - it does not exist! How can a page with this title even be given the light of day on a site such as wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednectar.chris (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This merge is completely the wrong way around. Firstly we must understand that "802.1Q" is a trademarked term. Certainly the industry uses colloquial terms like "QinQ" and even "802.1QinQ", but no decent reference material would still refer to anything standardised as anything but "provider bridges" or "802.1ad". In fact, I see people using the two terms quite distinctly, pre-standard implementations are now referred to as "QinQ" and use 0x8100 in both tags, while 802.1ad or provider bridge implementations use the standard 0x88a8 in the S-TAG and 0x8100 in the C-TAG.
What I am proposing is that the main article should be 802.1ad-2005 - this reference "802.1QinQ" should be removed as a possible breach of copyright (because it uses "802.1Q" in a non standard way), or if left it should only define the historical aspect of pre-standard Provider Bridges using the now defunct 0x8100 double tag.
I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge of the finer points of wikipedia to amend this myself, nor the time to do so, but would be grateful if someone could sort this out to raise the standard of the article. Rednectar.chris (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Further to my objection to using "802.1QinQ", I notice that HP [1] and Nortel [2] now refer to "802.1ad QinQ" rather than 802.1QinQ Rednectar.chris (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- We can rename the article. What do you propose as a new name? I don't think "802.1ad QinQ" is particularly accessible. The 802.1 guys generally call it "Provider bridging". Does that work better for you? --Kvng (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article should be renamed to 802.1ad. That way we can still add a section explaining the term QinQ and its uses. But as 802.1ad is the standard, this article should be named after it.195.212.29.188 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement over the current title. I've requested the move below. --Kvng (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)