The problem goes away as long as they are matching.

----- Original Message -----
From: michael haynes <[email protected]>
To: William Affeldt
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thu May 14 12:09:12 2009
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg.

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] 
<mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected]>
        <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] 
<mailto: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 <http://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