My guess would simply be that the switch is miserable over the fact that it is not picking up any FLPs and is generating errors because of it.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_tech_note09186a00800a7af0.shtml Shows exactly what errors can occur with different configurations. I don't see a configuration listed in which the nic is 100 full and the switch actually negotiates to 100 full. I would really be surprised if that were what was going on. Michael On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM, michael haynes <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't trust any scenario that has auto on one side and a hard set > speed/duplex on the other. Cisco's never seemed to put a lot of faith > behind their auto-negotiation. I know they used to recommend hard setting > ports to begin with, and the 6500s I used to work with never could > auto-negotiate properly with SUN servers;) > > Michael > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Affeldt > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> It could also be that on the 3750 the port is showing 100 full but is >> actually half duplex. The switch seems to be very buggy. >> >> >> >> ----- 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]> >> Sent: Thu May 14 12:01:55 2009 >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg. >> >> The reason is that auto mode uses fast link pulses in order to negotiate >> speed and duplex settings. If the client is hard coded to 100 full, there >> are no fast link pulses going between the client and switch. The switch >> decides that nothing else will do in our technologically advanced world >> besides 'half duplex' - leading to duplex mismatch problems beween the >> workstation and the switch. >> >> Michael >> >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM, William Affeldt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> 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/> < >> 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/> < >> 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]>> <mailto: >> 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/> <http://www.ipexpert.com/> >> >> Ha! Great result :-) >> >> cheers, >> Dale >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >
