Larry Letterman wrote: > > All of our cisco campus devices work just fine with auto/auto > and > Multiple hardware types with various nics don't have any > issues... > > If your nics are not auto/auto capable or it does not work > well, then as > Fred > Says, hard code it...However I use auto/auto in my data center > on campus > and > See no reason to hard code 2000 devices and maintain that many > different > settings.. > > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Reimer, Fred > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Catalyst 2950: The Spawn of the Devil? [7:72821] > > > They don't happen to be autonegotiation issues, do they? Cisco > used to > have a nice write-up on autonegotiation troubleshooting and best > practices that recommended hard-coding everything except for > transient > devices. Some crack-head at Cisco decided to update that > recently and > now I suppose their "official" stance is to use autonegotiation, > ostensibly because they follow the standard correctly, so as > long as > everyone else does it should work! I have not met a Cisco > engineer yet > that agrees with that though. > > Hard-code your speed and duplex, unless it is for ports in an > area like > a conference room where you will have transient devices. > > Fred Reimer - CCNA > > > Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA > 30338 > Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 > > > NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary > information > which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the > named > recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has > misdirected the > email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If > you are > not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, > disclose, > distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should > immediately > delete it from your computer. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Catalyst 2950: The Spawn of the Devil? [7:72821] > > All those who consider any version of this platform beware. As > far as I > can tell there are no reliable software versions for this > switch that do > not suffer from connectivity bugs. We thought 12.1(13)EA1b > solved our > problems so we started rolling out this version. Upon reloading > we have > a number of users complaining and we're not able to resolve the > connectivity issue. > > Granted, this particular problem is between the 2950 and an old > NIC but > I'm sure we're not the only company with a few older NICs in the > network. If you're considering replacing existing switches with > the 2950 > prepare yourself for deluge of conenctivity problems. > > You have been warned! > > [Side note to Cisco: How hard is it to build an access switch > that > works?? We're on 12.1(13)EA1b and we still have BASIC > connectivity > bugs??? This is ridiculous. Bugs in the more obscure portions > of the > code are to be expected, but shouldn't the connectivity bugs be > given a > little higher priority? When we buy a new switch it would be > nice if > *all* of our end users could actually connect to the network. > Maybe > we'll go back to using Nortel switches. ] > >
Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72849&t=72821 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
