What types of errors are you actually seeing?

Michael

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, michael haynes <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you hard set the port and the client to 100 full do you continue to get
> errors? (i.e. is it a symptom of auto-negotiation or does it happen
> regardless of negotiation being on or off)
> Michael
>
>   On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:04 PM, William Affeldt 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> It negotiates correctly and gets errors. I have tested with 4 different
>> pc's and I get the same result. The switch negotiates 100 full and slowly
>> counts errors.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Astorino <[email protected]>
>> To: William Affeldt; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <
>> [email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thu May 14 11:52:41 2009
>> Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg.
>>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> Are you talking about auto speed, auto duplex, or both?  There is a pretty
>> good explanation of this in the first few chapters of the R/S exam cert
>> guide v3 I believe.  Don't quote me on it, but I think that with duplex,
>> if
>> you have auto on the switch and hard set it on the PC side the switch has
>> to
>> fall back to the default which is half duplex.  Check out that book
>> though,
>> there is a good explanation.  Hope that helps a little
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347 (R&S)
>> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Affeldt
>> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:44 PM
>> To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]
>> '
>> Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg.
>>
>>  Does anyone know the exact reason why if a switchport is set to auto and
>> a
>> pc is hard set to anything it negotiates but gets errors?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jared Scrivener <[email protected]>
>> To: William Affeldt; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wed May 13 21:26:04 2009
>> Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Section 1 lab 18.6
>>
>> They are synonyms in a sense. CAR is a policing method, but one of many.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP Sr. Technical
>> Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
>> Mailto: [email protected]
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Affeldt
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 10:31 PM
>> To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
>> Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Section 1 lab 18.6
>>
>> Can some one explain when to use policing and when to use CAR. The
>> question
>> said policing and the proctor guide used CAR.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: [email protected]
>> <[email protected]>
>> To: Robert S Wyzykowski <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wed May 13 18:17:25 2009
>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] MRM Volume 3 Lab 7 Section 5.3
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> R4 does not need to join. Can you post your config?
>> If I get packet loss, I usually join the group manually and test using
>> pings, debugging along the way.
>>
>> Bryan Bartik
>> CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP
>> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Robert S Wyzykowski <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>        I can't seem to get a successful test, and I don't know how to
>> troubleshoot why.  Getting 100% packet loss.
>>        The MRM configuration is pretty straight forward.  Does R4 need to
>> join the group 230.230.230.230 for this to have a successful test?  I do a
>> mtrace from R2 for 230.230.230.230 and there's nothing there.
>>
>>        I watched the video solution, I have everything in place as
>> instructed, but no love.
>>
>>        Please help.
>>        Cheers!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        Robert Wyzykowski
>>        Manager, Global Telecommunications
>>        IMERYS
>>        30 Mansell Court East - Suite 220
>>        Roswell, GA, USA
>>        Phone: +1 770 645 3734
>>        Mobile: +1 404-434 9000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        From:   Dale Shaw 
>> <[email protected]<dale.shaw%[email protected]>
>> <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] <dale.shaw%[email protected]>> >
>>        To:     Joe Astorino <[email protected]>
>>        Cc:     [email protected]
>>        Date:   05/13/2009 07:00 PM
>>        Subject:        Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] test
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Joe Astorino
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>        > Hello? : )
>>        >
>>        > Regards,
>>        >
>>        > Joe Astorino
>>        > CCIE #24347 (R&S),CCDP,CCNP,CCDA,CCNA
>>        > Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>>        > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/> <
>> http://www.ipexpert.com/>
>>
>>        Ha! Great result :-)
>>
>>        cheers,
>>        Dale
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/14/09
>> 06:28:00
>>
>
>

Reply via email to