You get dramas with flow control when you hardcode speed/duplex. If your errors look like they may be related to this check there.
Cheers, Matt CCIE #22386 CCSI #31207 2009/5/15 michael haynes <[email protected]>: > 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/> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
