Well I'm not sure I agree about not being able to control what users do. I would see either a) users don't even know how to get into their adapter properties so it will stay at a default of auto or b) the advanced user probably expects the switchport they are connected to to support auto-negotiation.
Auto-negotiate can only 'negotiate' if both sides agree on the protocol, just like any other network protocol - just like any client/server relationship. It just so happens that by hard setting the client, you are disabling the protocol completely. Michael On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:34 PM, William Affeldt <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/> < > 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/> < > 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]>> > > <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]><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]>> > <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]><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/> < > http://www.ipexpert.com/> <http://www.ipexpert.com/> > > > > Ha! Great result :-) > > cheers, > Dale > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > >
