This could be hitting close.
This cct was provided as a 100meg full duplex circuit with a 5 meg CIR.
However, the router procured was a 2611 which has only 10 meg ethernet.
The foirls were swapped out and the cct turned down to 10 meg half-duplex
with the same CIR.
The 2611 accepts the full-duplex / half-duplex command but I'm not sure that
it actually does anything. On another project there were problems with
duplex settings using a 2611. It seemed that the router did the opposite
that was configured. And I'm not sure that the 2611 can do full-duplex
ethernet. We have a few 4700s that do full duplex but they have a certain
model ethernet card. Looking at them, sh int definitely states full duplex.
When I do a sh int on the 2611 - I never see the report with "full-duplex"
regardless of what is actually configured.
Your statement about NetXray not seeing it may be correct. (since so far I
haven't)
Also - in our tests, the late collisions happen a lot more often going when
traffic (ftp, netperf, etc) is being sent from A to B and only a few
problems seen with traffic being sent from B to A. Hence your comment about
one side seeing it but the other not is close to what we have at the moment.
But, picture this setup::: fibre from POP, goes to foirl comes out cat5 and
goes to dumb hub.
>From the hub the 2611 is connected and the PC running NetXray. Why wouldn't
NetXray be able to see the type of things that Priscilla mentioned?
The only "evidence" of late collisions I have so far is that I get console
messages declaring the late collision and yes - it says while sending.......
So I like what you say but that gets me back to the 2611 and the full /
half-duplex thing.
However, now I have something specific to test.
thanks! will inform when a resolution is in hand........
Kevin Wigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony van Ree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "cisco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 22 February, 2001 21:54
Subject: Re: OT: Sniffing
> Hi All,
>
> Consider this a a half duplex router port speeaking to a full duplex port
on a switch. The switch is quiet and receiving data from the router. Being
full duplex the router will send when receiving. It sends to the half
duplex "BINGO" 'late collision'.
>
>
> I have found this to be the most common cause. You can really go nuts
because NETXray probably won't see it. Only the half duplex port sees the
error. The full duplex connection has no error. What you might get on a
full duplex port is a collision (but full duplex can't collide now can it?)
>
> Just some thoughts, I make good money on this one.
>
> Teunis,
> Hobart, Tasmania
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 05:49:19 PM, Kevin Wigle wrote:
>
> > Group,
> >
> > There are a few sniffer users on the list and I got a question.
> >
> > I'm using Net Xray, Sniffer Pro is available (but not installed yet).
> >
> > We have a problem of out of order packets and just recently I've noticed
on
> > the router console that we're getting late collisions.
> >
> > Now I always thought that late collisions were a product of a cable that
is
> > too long. In this case however, it's fibre from the basement up to a
lab to
> > a foirl and then a patch cord length of 10BaseT from the foirl to the
> > router.
> >
> > I'm looking at the sniffer output and I don't know what to look for to
> > identify late collisions. I don't even know if you can see them or the
> > symptoms with a sniffer.
> >
> > Can anyone (even if you watch other lists.... :-) ) comment if the
> > sniffer is even a viable tool to troubleshoot this?
> >
> > I've been going at it with our ISP for some time now and I need some
> > ammunition to get them to do something.
> >
> > Kevin Wigle
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
