On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 10:24 -0500, Darren Albers wrote: > I just tried to use NM and a Cisco 2950 switch without portfast > enabled, this resulted in NetworkManager assigning me a 169.x address. > > When I tried this on a 3550 it went from Blocking to Forwarding a lot > quicker so NM worked fine and anyone who sets up a switch for user > access is probably going to enable portfast so this may not be a big > deal and might only affect a small number of users who probably work > in a Datacenter and know to just click on NM and have it reconnect to > the wired. > > I don't know of any way for NM to detect that a switch is going > through all the STP checks so maybe the ethernet timeout could be > increased a little? In this case my switch went from blocking to > forwarding about 3 seconds after NM gave up and assigned me a 169 > address so it should not need to be much longer... > > On another subject, does NM have a bug database that I should submit > this to? I could not find anything so I wasn't sure.
What's the situation here? NM only cares if the machine's ethernet card has a link or not, which is reported by the driver for the card itself. Once the driver reports that it has a link, NM will attempt to acquire a DHCP address on that port. Are you saying that the switch takes a long time to actually start passing traffic from the machine on which NM is running, even though the port is active? Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
