What you said is causing the issue. When something is hard set it does not negotiate. It really defeats the purpose of the word of auto. You do not always have access to the client and so the switch should be able to auto negotiate and find out what the client is using. Also, you do not always get to choose what the client sets on their PC.
----- 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 12:27:07 2009 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg. I'm not sure what you think Cisco will do. Most likely they'll point to the same document I sent you and say that you are not running with a valid configuration. Either your switchports need to be hard coded to 100 full or you need to modify the workstations back to auto-negotiate. I know it is a bitter pill, but the switch sounds like it's working as designed (Unless the errors aren't indicative of a duplex mismatch, of course). Michael On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, William Affeldt <[email protected]> wrote: I am just tired of hearing because on the issue. I am about ready to open a TAC case and make them resolve it. Or just say "Works as designed," more like not at all. ----- 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 12:14:04 2009 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Switch and pc auto neg. 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/> <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/> <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]> > <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected]> <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected]> > > <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected]> <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected] <mailto:dale.shaw%[email protected]> > <mailto: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/> <http://www.ipexpert.com/> <http://www.ipexpert.com/> Ha! Great result :-) cheers, Dale --
