I am not on site and the exact one is slipping my mind. I will get back with it in a little while.
----- 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 12:12:28 2009 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg. 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] <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
