The 2924XL isn't a CatOS switch. Do you know if it has the equivalent command? I was under the impression that a switchport on a 2924XL was an access port by default and had to be manually set to be a trunk port of any sort.
Is that not correct? I'll need to check into that as well. Thanks, John >>> "W. Alan Robertson" 1/25/02 11:35:00 AM >>> Actually, It's not just spanning-tree that causes it... Are you familiar with "set port host?" It's a macro in newer CatOS. In addition to enabling portfast on a port, it also disables channel and trunk negotiation, with is enabled by default. On older CatOS code, you have to perform each of these three steps independantly, but you can achieve the same results. This has always corrected the problem for me... HTH, Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Neiberger" To: Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 12:17 PM Subject: RE: 2924XL and Blue Screen of Death: Resolved [7:33203] > I don't think the issue is the switch, but the fact that spanning tree > is running. I would guess that any feature that causes the network to > be unavailable when one of these machines boots up would cause this > problem. In fact, it happens even if you're not connected to the > network at all. > > The problem appears to be a combination of issues with the NIC and the > new Novell Client software. This problem does not occur in the previous > software with these same NICs. > > John > > >>> "Bill Carter" 1/25/02 10:13:01 AM >>> > I wonder if these cards would have problems with 3Com switches???? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > John Neiberger > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 2924XL and Blue Screen of Death: Resolved [7:33203] > > > Well, sort of resolved. This turned out to be a known issue with Dell > machines, specifically machines using a 3COM 3C905C NIC. They expect > the network to be available almost immediately upon bootup and can't > handle the delay caused by spanning tree. In some cases, even > portfast > did not reduce the time sufficiently. > > So, watch out for those 3COM NICs! > > John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33234&t=33203 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
