On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:43:03PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
What is more confusing is when vendors use half-duplex
bandwidth to make a line card seem faster, e.g., a 30Gbps
line card is sold as a 60Gbps if traffic flows in only one
direction.
Well, that depends. Lets assume the linecard in
On Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:39:49 AM Daniel Roesen
wrote:
All this n Gbps per Slot stuff should go away. Vendors
should clearly describe their architecture (fabric,
backplane connectivity, traffic handling chips) and
their specific performance characteristics. Blanket
statements seldom
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:46:45PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
I look at the overall architecture, and generally ignore the
Gbps/slot schpill. Real life places different demands on the
platform, and the numbers generated by the vendors are
usually not in line with real life.
To cut them some
On 11/18/2014 5:16 AM, M K wrote:
Hi all , we were arguing about the full duplex FE interface and it's speedIs it
true that this interface can handle 100Mbps send and 100Mbps receive at the
same time? like it is 200Mbps ?
Thanks
This reminds me of the late
On 18/11/14 02:16, M K wrote:
Is it true that this interface can handle 100Mbps send and 100Mbps receive at
the same time?
Yes. It's 100 Mbps full-duplex.
like it is 200Mbps ?
No. It's 100 Mbps full-duplex.
It's the same as DSL: If you have a 10 Mbps download speed and a 1 Mbps
upload
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 02:16:23 AM Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
If I found a vendor that did that, I would run away from
it for lying.
But they all do that.
What is more confusing is when vendors use half-duplex
bandwidth to make a line card seem faster, e.g., a 30Gbps
line card is sold
On 11/22/2014 11:43 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 02:16:23 AM Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
If I found a vendor that did that, I would run away from
it for lying.
But they all do that.
What is more confusing is when vendors use half-duplex
bandwidth to make a line card seem
On 11/22/2014 12:17 PM, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:43 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 02:16:23 AM Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
If I found a vendor that did that, I would run away from
it for lying.
But they all do that.
What is more confusing is when vendors use
: Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:43 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Cc: M K
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Full Duplex
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 02:16:23 AM Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
If I found a vendor that did that, I would run away from
it for lying.
But they all do that.
What is more confusing
On 11/18/14, 2:16 AM, M K wrote:
If you have an expressway with lanes in both directions and a speed limit of
100 MPH, you don't call it a 200 MPH expressway. (That's full-duplex).
Yes, but if you view that as cars per second, which is a bit more comparable
to bits per second - 100cps
On Friday, November 21, 2014 08:36:58 PM Rick Martin wrote:
With that said, I too agree that referring to 100Mbps
full duplex as 200Mbps is typically service provider
market speak.
Vendor-speak, to be more accurate.
The only time I've seen service providers hear about such
talk is when
Marketing folks love to use half-duplex when speaking about backplane
fabric speed.. Typically they don't do that on the ports themselves,
typically..
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote:
On 11/18/14, 2:16 AM, M K wrote:
Hi all , we were arguing about the full
On 20 Aug 2010, at 17:57, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
Regardless of what the UI appears to be doing, you can't do gigabit without
autonegotiating.
Yes, you can do gig without autoneg. That doesn't make it a good idea, but it
certainly works.
Nick
Please elaborate.
How do you manually configure which end of the link is master for clocking
purposes?
Sorry for top-posting. Sent from my clunky phone interface.
/chris
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 20 Aug 2010, at 17:57, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
Regardless of what
Andrew said:
On 20/08/2010, at 5:57 PM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
Two mentions of problems with manually configured gigabit operation.
Is there really a problem in that scenario? Shouldn't be.
Regardless of what the UI appears to be doing, you can't do gigabit without
but it does auto-negotiate.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:37 AM
To: and...@2sheds.de; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] full
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 09:42, Jim Getker (getker) get...@cisco.com wrote:
There is no such thing as gigabit half duplex
Actually, the IEEE specifications allows for 1000/half
(to support gigabit hubs). That I have never seen a
gigabit hub is not relevant to the capabilities one must
build into
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] full duplex mismatch speed - dynamips
Importance: High
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 09:42, Jim Getker (getker) get...@cisco.com
wrote:
There is no such thing as gigabit half duplex
Actually, the IEEE specifications allows for 1000/half
(to support gigabit hubs). That I have
Thats an interesting point! I had that problem yesterday with a ethernet
extension service CPE connecting to 2800. The CPE didn't like no auto.
I'm really curious as to why there are many people here saying forcing ports
is a bad thing though. I was pretty surprised to be reading that actually,
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:33:14AM +0100, Heath Jones wrote:
I'm really curious as to why there are many people here saying forcing ports
is a bad thing though. I was pretty surprised to be reading that actually,
its good to have another perspective on the idea.
If you force one end, and
Hi Gert,
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.
By renegotiation I meant each end changing state. Yes I chose a bad word.
Do you have a
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
Its good to get your experience Gert - Almost all of my experience to date
has been with control of both ends of the link - service provider, managed
hosting etc - so believe it or not, I haven't actually run into these issues
of forcing only one side of a link. I'll definately keep it in mind for
My favorite is when the sys-admin sets 10-12 prod servers to 100/1000 - full
doesn't tell anyone and then comes back in a panic because the network
blew up.
On 8/20/10 10:36 AM, Andrew Miehs and...@2sheds.de wrote:
+1 for Autonegotiation.
I have had so many problems because someone forced
My favorite is when the sys-admin sets 10-12 prod servers to 100/1000 -
full
doesn't tell anyone and then comes back in a panic because the
network
blew up.
I have had so many problems because someone forced 100/Full,
1000/Full on a
switch and the servers
could
A) Not set duplex
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
My favorite is when the sys-admin sets 10-12 prod servers to 100/1000 - full
doesn't tell anyone and then comes back in a panic because the network
blew up.
Or they just call you up and say, The network is running
On 20/08/2010, at 5:57 PM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
Two mentions of problems with manually configured gigabit operation.
Is there really a problem in that scenario? Shouldn't be.
Regardless of what the UI appears to be doing, you can't do gigabit without
autonegotiating.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:03:44 -0700, Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com
wrote:
Guys,
Anyone knows how to solve this on dynamips? (router with lan switch
connection) - I thought that setting
speed auto would solve it.
R3#
*Mar 1 00:12:08.323: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
Also, while auto speed/duplex negotiation is fine for user
workstation/PC
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Adam Armstrong li...@memetic.org wrote:
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Adam Armstrong wrote:
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
Also, while auto
Oh, believe me, you're not alone. We have actually a cable guy with a
piece of paper on the wall behind picturing a road sign - crossed red
circle with the word auto inside.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM, John Neiberger jneiber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Adam
On 19/08/2010 17:52, John Neiberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Adam Armstrongli...@memetic.org wrote:
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto,
On 8/19/10 1:26 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Adam Armstrong wrote:
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Adam Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:35 PM
To: John Neiberger
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] full duplex mismatch speed - dynamips
On 19/08/2010 17:52, John Neiberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010
On 19/08/2010 18:26, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Adam Armstrong wrote:
On 17/08/2010 23:50, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not
Abello, Vinny wrote:
The PA-FE-TX (at least the ones I've used) don't support auto speed/duplex,
so it's not that they have problems with auto. They just don't support it.
I've always had to set the device up that they're talking to using manual
settings.
It's especially bad when the device on
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)
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
Hello,
Actually it looks like a dynamips/IOS bug in the emulation of
GT96100-FE - see http://7200emu.hacki.at/viewtopic.php?t=4484 or
alternatively this one
http://7200emu.hacki.at/viewtopic.php?t=121postdays=0postorder=ascstart=30
On the other side Gert is correct this is more a cosmetic issue,
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
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
'no cdp log mismatch duplex' could be a better way to get rid of
annoying message but still have cdp running. That is if you're sure
it's a bug not inadequate configuration.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com wrote:
Guys,
Thanks for all replies, googling it
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03:44PM -0300, Jeferson Guardia wrote:
Anyone knows how to solve this on dynamips? (router with lan switch
connection) - I thought that setting
speed auto would solve it.
If that's a 7200, just nail it to duplex full.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable
Jeferson,
why no one read the 'dynamis' word on the subject? this is a particular
issue being experienced on a 3725 being used as a switch on DYNAMIPS...
it
just doesnt work...
Since Dynamips is an emulator (and from the looks of it, quite an old one)
it could also be a bug in the emulator
If it's any help at all, I downloaded GNS3 about 3 weeks ago and with
relatively recent IOS, its working fine and I can force to 100/full.
Andreas is right.. So is it possible for you to upgrade to latest dynamips?
On 18 August 2010 09:44, Andreas Sikkema asikk...@office.unet.nl wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:44:37AM +0200, Andreas Sikkema wrote:
Since Dynamips is an emulator (and from the looks of it, quite an old one)
it could also be a bug in the emulator itself. Or even a bug in the IOS
version you're using, or a combination of both.
The bug in dynamips would
Whatever config I make, it does not work. Some people here got the point,
some are still thinking I am missing stuff somewhere..
anyway, I not using GNS3 but Dynagen. I am loading up 14 devices and on gns3
this usually crashes, the only stable way I found on loading, it was using
dynagen, but
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I would have agreed five to ten years ago. However, nowadays we use
autoneg everywhere with a few well known exceptions (e.g. Cisco 7200
with Fast Ethernet PAs). Autoneg simply gives us less problems.
Autoneg also has the advantage of almost always failing in an
On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 01:30:07 pm sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
I would have agreed five to ten years ago. However,
nowadays we use autoneg everywhere with a few well known
exceptions (e.g. Cisco 7200 with Fast Ethernet PAs).
Autoneg simply gives us less problems.
+1.
Mark.
Guys,
Anyone knows how to solve this on dynamips? (router with lan switch
connection) - I thought that setting
speed auto would solve it.
R3#
*Mar 1 00:12:08.323: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
*Mar 1 00:12:10.027: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/0, changed
state
Do you have two Cisco devices separated by a non-Cisco device? Imagine this:
A B --- C
A and C are Cisco devices, B is not. If B is a switch or a hub, it
will pass CDP frames from A to C, which can cause these weird
mismatches. It's not really a mismatch because A and C are not
actually
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
Att,
AB
2010/8/17 Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com:
Guys,
Anyone knows how to solve this on dynamips? (router with lan switch
connection) - I thought that
Jeff,
use the 'show interface FastEthernet0/0' command on this router (R3)
and see a problem:
'duplex mismatch discovered on FastEthernet0/0 ''(not full duplex)''
- this interface not operate in fullduplex mode.'
Att,
AB
2010/8/17 Alessandro Braga sandro.u...@gmail.com:
Verify duplex and
Guys,
Thanks for all replies, googling it I came across a link at groupstudy from
someone experiencing the same problem before when labbing up CCIE
topologies.
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200701/msg01450.html
I think it is a dynamips 'bug/weird behavior' , the way of getting rid
You would need to change the duplex (half or full) to solve this, not the
speed.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 22:03, Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com wrote:
Guys,
Anyone knows how to solve this on dynamips? (router with lan switch
connection) - I thought that setting
speed auto would solve
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
Also, while auto speed/duplex negotiation is fine for user workstation/PC
ports in most cases, I recommend against using
Jeff,
probably your configurations dont are correct or the autonegotiation
dont work properly, try put the shut and no shut commands on envolved
interfaces.
i dont remember of the any case this.
Rgs,
AB
2010/8/17 Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com:
Guys,
Thanks for all replies,
Guys,
why no one read the 'dynamis' word on the subject? this is a particular
issue being experienced on a 3725 being used as a switch on DYNAMIPS... it
just doesnt work...
2010/8/17 Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alessandro Braga wrote:
Verify duplex and
Verify duplex and speed configurations on interface, the rule is:
autoXauto, forcedXforced. If problem not solve, disable cdp.
Also, while auto speed/duplex negotiation is fine for user workstation/PC
ports in most cases, I recommend against using it on your network
infrastructure if
60 matches
Mail list logo
