Hi all

Does anybody have any experience of compatibility issues between a Cisco
switch and a 3Com switch? We have a 3548 connected to a 3Com SuperStack II
Desktop Switch. The link is manually set up as 100MB full duplex, and a show
interface on the 3548 shows a large number of CRC errors, but no collisions.
Reading various docs, I believe that this would normally be caused by
excessive noise.

The 3Com was set up for a forwarding state of Fast Forward, and after 3
hours of monitoring yesterday I changed it to Store and Forward. Before it
was changed there were 700 CRC errors within the 3 hours, and after I
changed it, there were only 30 errors in the next 3 hours.

There are clients connected to the 3Com switch that are having the odd
connection problem, but if the are moved directly onto the 3548, they no
longer get problems. I thought perhaps the errors may be due to excessive
traffic, but if you look at the 2 interface stats below, one port has more
traffic than the other, but less CRC errors:

        GS-3548-01#sh int f0/2
        FastEthernet0/2 is up, line protocol is up 
          Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0003.e35c.8242 (bia
0003.e35c.8242)
          MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, 
             reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
          Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
          Keepalive not set
          Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX
          ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
          Last input never, output 00:00:01, output hang never
          Last clearing of "show interface" counters 02:48:26
          Queueing strategy: fifo
          Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops
          5 minute input rate 5000 bits/sec, 5 packets/sec
          5 minute output rate 36000 bits/sec, 12 packets/sec
             142908 packets input, 22151873 bytes
             Received 2932 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
             32 input errors, 32 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
             0 watchdog, 30 multicast
             0 input packets with dribble condition detected
             207125 packets output, 70760794 bytes, 0 underruns
             0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
             0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
             0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
             0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
        GS-3548-01#sh int f0/7
        FastEthernet0/7 is up, line protocol is up 
          Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0003.e35c.8247 (bia
0003.e35c.8247)
          MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, 
             reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
          Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
          Keepalive not set
          Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX
          ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
          Last input never, output 00:00:01, output hang never
          Last clearing of "show interface" counters 02:48:29
          Queueing strategy: fifo
          Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops
          5 minute input rate 1000 bits/sec, 1 packets/sec
          5 minute output rate 7000 bits/sec, 6 packets/sec
             53844 packets input, 9100547 bytes
             Received 2293 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
             53 input errors, 53 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
             0 watchdog, 5 multicast
             0 input packets with dribble condition detected
             108913 packets output, 37215109 bytes, 0 underruns
             0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
             0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
             0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
             0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

I have tried using Sniffer Pro and Observer to gather stats, but neither
show any errors (possibly due to my NIC card not set up properly?)

Any advice/help given would be most appreciated.

Regards
Shaun

_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to