Are your systems connected by any type of punch down blocks.  I have
experience may of
these errors due to crosstalk (like Priscilla stated) caused by bad punch
down blocks.
The only way i was able to see the sources causing the problems was with a
lan fluke.

Ko

Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:

> At 09:35 AM 1/30/02, Patrick Donlon wrote:
> >Positive, if you look at the show port (on the other mail) you'll see
there
> >are no collisions
>
> This side is set (or auto-negotiated) to full duplex. Receiving while
> sending is not an error. This side should never report a collision. That
> doesn't mean that there can't be a duplex-mode mismatch. A mismatch could
> result in both sides reporting errors, just of different sorts.
>
> The other side could be set (or auto-negotiated) to half-duplex. You should
> check if it has errors, including collisions. If the half-duplex side does
> its normal CSMA/CD thing, senses no data, and happens to send while the
> other side is sending, the result is a collision from the half-duplex
> sender's viewpoint. The half-duplex side stops sending and backs off, in
> the middle of its frame. The result is probably a runt with either an
> alignment and/or Frame Check Sequence (FCS) error. The recipient receives
> an errored frame, even though it can't correlate this with a collision
> event. The recipient reports a runt and/or FCS or alignment error.
>
> Now, if you are sure that you don't have the obvious problem that everyone
> is going to assume you have (duplex mismatch), and you are still seeing
> alignment and FCS errors, then it's time to start investigating what else
> besides collisions could damage frames. An FCS means that the FCS placed in
> the frame by the sender doesn't match the FCS calculated by the recipient.
> In other words, a bit got changed. An alignment error means that the frame
> didn't end on an 8-bit boundary. In other words, a bit got dropped.
>
> Besides collisions, these errors could be caused by crosstalk, impedance
> mismatch, noise, running a power generator next the cables, lightning
> strikes, etc.
>
> Hope that makes sense. Please let us know the resolution. It will be a good
> learning experience.
>
> Priscilla
>
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >""Steven A. Ridder""  wrote in message
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Are you sure switch and NIC are the same speed and duplex?  Looks like
> >port
> > > speed/duplex mismatch.
> > > ""Patrick Donlon""  wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Hi Everyone
> > > >
> > > >  I trying to find some information on some Ethernet errors that I see
> on
> >a
> > > >  port, see the text below. The machine is an RS6000 and was
> experiencing
> > > > some
> > > >  performance problems, the NIC was set to auto negotiation and there
> >were
> > > > the
> > > >  usual errors. The port and NIC are now both fixed and the errors are
> > > >  increasing steadily, I've had a good search on the CCO but I can't
> find
> > > any
> > > >  explanation of what causes the errors, any advice will be
appreciated
> > > >
> > > >  Regards
> > > >
> > > >  Patrick
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33830&t=33687
--------------------------------------------------
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