On 19/08/2010 21:02, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 8/19/2010 12:26, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:52:48AM -0600, John Neiberger wrote:
Adam, you are my new best friend. I've been saying this for the past
few years and people still think I'm crazy. I flat out refuse to
manually configure speed and duplex for someone unless it is
demonstrated (or I can verify) that a duplex mismatch is actually
happening or there is some other extenuating circumstance that
requires it.
JFTR, count me in that camp as well (and that has been discussed here
on c-nsp just a few months ago as well).
The PA-FE-TX is really the only thing left in our network that needs
force-duplex.
I, believe it or not, still have a 3640 floating around with a NM-4E set
to 10/full on all interfaces. It hasn't died yet and does its intended
job perfectly.
I'd tried to turn up a fast ethernet with Verizon a while back and their
policy was to set the ports on the overture to 100/full, no auto.
But these are both fringe cases these days. Other than that it's autoneg
all the way. It's not the 90's anymore. There's absolutely no reason to
not use it.
I think the nailing issue is still more of a problem in "telcos" as
opposed to "isps". Telcos being in general larger, slower and more fond
of process and procedure which once instituted are impossible to remove :)
I've worked for a telco which insisted on forcing ports both internally
and customer facing. They went so far as to force 100/full on ports
facing phones and printers.
It took a while to remove the practice. I found challenging people to
tell me when the last time they saw an issue caused by an
autonegotiating port where the other side wasn't forced helped quite a
lot, as no one could think of any, it was just something they'd always
done, for fear of the autoneg boogeyman!
adam.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
