Hi, On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Heath Jones wrote: > You response appreciated. One fatal assumption though is me only forcing one > end of the link - where did that come from? Read back over my post, keeping > in mind that I force both ends to 100/full.
If you can ensure(!) that both ends are always force-config'ed, then there is nothing wrong with forcing 100/full (except for those devices where that doesn't really work, unfortunately, there's a number of them). The problem is that networks change. A server/router breaks down, gets exchanged in the middle of the night. Configuration can not be copy-paste'd (because it's different hardware), so "duplex full" gets lost. These things happen, and in my experience, if a network runs for 5 years, you have lots and lots of duplex mismatches creep into your network in various places - we took over a larger hosting business some years ago, and they had been religiously nailing "manual forced full-duplex!!" everywhere. I found at least 10 customer connections that had developed duplex mismatches over time... [..] > Do you have a view on what causes an end (or both ends) of a link to all of > a sudden change state and think the other end is not capable of 100/full? > That is what I am trying to understand. I am also referring to a link that > is not erroring like mad and the occurrences might be as low as once per > week. Never seen that. But that could be cabling that "just barely so" works, and if something changes (humidity, ...) tolerance is exceeded... gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de _______________________________________________ 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/