I agree with Larry. We support 6500 + devices and have had our far share of connectivity issues. Last year we had a few NICs that generated lots of errors when they were hard set to match the switch. We tried every combination of negotiation and the only setting the eliminated the errors was auto/auto on both the switch & PCs.
Cheers, Mike 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=72853&t=72821 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
