only the leftward pointing one ( greater than ) - anything after such a symbol is deleted.
becomes a problem when discussing prefix lists. ""Reimer, Fred"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Man, someone remind me not to use the greater than and less than symbols on > this list! Apparently they are striped out as some type of evil HTML code > or something by the software... > > 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: Reimer, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Catalyst 2950: The Spawn of the Devil? [7:72821] > > "I never recommend hard-coding 100/Full on newer switches like > the 2950 and 6500. It might work but you're just asking for problems. > With the majority of the NICs in our PCs, if you hardset both sides to > 100/full you will get a duplex mismatch when the PC NIC falls back to > half duplex when autonegotiation fails. This behavior is relatively new, > and was not present in the 2924XL, the forerunner of the 2950." > > I'd have to disagree with you there. If you hard-code a device it can't > "fail" autonegotiation. The two are diametrically opposed. It's any > oxymoron. Illogical to the nth degree. And this behavior is >notstay>> > "Reimer, Fred" 7/23/03 12:31:16 PM >>> > 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=72861&t=72821 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
