Yep, that will happen. Paul (the list owner) said that he thinks there is a bug in the anti-mime software but he hasn't had time to check into it yet. So, word to the wise: don't use greater-than or less-than signs in your emails for a while! It definitely mangles posts if you use those symbols.
John >>> Reimer, Fred 7/23/03 3:15:06 PM >>> 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=72857&t=72821 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
