Talk:IEEE 802.1ad

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Help!!![edit]

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)[reply]

Description incorrect[edit]

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]

(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)[reply]

QinQ ethertype?[edit]

I was under the impression that Q in Q used the ethertype of 0x9100 in the outer tag and the ordinary Q type 8100 in the inner tag. The graphics states that both tags use 8100. Does anyone knows what is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.30.50 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. The Q-in-Q should have an EtherType of 0x9100. If it had 0x8100, I guess there is no way to differentiate whether it is a 1Q tag or a Q-In-Q tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.246.142 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to protocol, The outer EtherType is 88a8 and the inner EtherType is 8100.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lay1421 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes only the linux networking devs think the types are the same. 2001:A60:1629:B201:7A24:AFFF:FE42:3EA5 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that the graphic should be updated to 0x88a8 ... According to http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/ethertype/eth.txt there is no registration for 0x9100.

Merging with IEEE_802.1ad-2005[edit]

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)[reply]

Done See Talk:IEEE 802.1ad-2005#Redundant? --Kvng (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Definitely an improvement over the current title. I've requested the move below. --Kvng (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Frame size[edit]

Ethernet frame indicates that maximum frame size was increased by 4 (in 802.3ac) for 802.1Q. Is there a further extension to frame size associated with QinQ? --Kvng (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

802.3 2008 describes an envelope frame, which allows up to 1982 octets for use of protocols such as 802.1ad, see sections 3.2.7 and 1.4.151. All 802.11q frames are considered envelope frames, not just 802.11ad. But, the original MAC Client data has not been expanded past the original 1500 octets, even if envelope formats are used. 26 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.3 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

802.1QinQ → 802.1ad — 802.1QinQ is not an 802.1 standard. See discussion above. Kvng (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Obsolete Standard[edit]

This standard is obsolete, as 802.1ad has been incorporated into 802.1Q-2011. See 802.1 wiki page, 802.1ad reference^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.48.12 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from arctive: Just as QinQ extends 802.1Q, QinQ itself is extended by other Metro Ethernet protocols.[specify] i.e. PBB-TE can be named as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A60:1629:B201:7A24:AFFF:FE42:3EA5 (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1

[1] ttp://h10144.www1.hp.com/products/switches/HP_ProCurve_6600_Switch_Series/overview.htm#stadProc

[2] ttp://www.nortel.com/solutions/optical/collateral/nn105540.pdf

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1

[1]

[2]

[1]