Scott Roberts wrote: > > I see what you're saying now. what would be nice to see is what > traffic > there is on a protocol analyzer. I would think that #2 should > be the > situation and your #1 is not the proper negotiation. > > I've never tried to cpature auttonegotiation with an analyzer > before, I > wonder if you can even capture that stuff?
No. It uses link pulses, not frames. Priscilla > > scott > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in > message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > No, that's not at all what I was referring to. I'm speaking > of the > behavior > > of switch interfaces when they're set to AUTO. Nortel > switches (at least > > the ones that we used) and some older Cisco switches like the > 2924XL > seemed > > to behave like Option #1 below, while the 2950 behaves like > Option #2. > > > > If both the switch and the device are using Option #1 you'll > be fine. If > you > > then upgrade to a Catalyst 2950 that uses Option #2, you'll > have all sorts > > of issues that need to be resolved. > > > > We've had a mixture of 2924XL and Bay 303/310 switches at our > branchse for > > quite a while with no issues. When we started replacing the > Bays with > > Catalyst 2950s we started having all sorts of problems, and > it took quite > a > > bit of research into FastEthernet NWAY/Autonegotiation to > determine the > > problem. > > > > Just a forewarning. :-) > > > > >>> Scott Roberts 3/10/03 12:12:48 PM >>> > > if I understand what you're saying, I think its always been > like that, > cisco > > hasn't changed it. > > > > you're refering to the fact that the IOS switch don't let you > change the > > speed? I think thats strange also, the set based switch can > allow you to > > change speed, but after the IOS "upgrading" of switches they > don't allow > you > > to change a 10/100 at the switch, but rather require you to > configure the > > desktop to 10 or 100 speed manually. > > > > I suppose the idea is that everyone should be using > autonegotiation > > according to cisco. > > > > scott > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I wanted to mention that we've been in the process of > upgrading our > > > switches, as well, and I discovered that since we've > started using the > new > > > Cisco switches we've been having all sorts of problems > getting the speed > > and > > > duplex settings set correctly. > > > > > > We've discovered that if you have relatively new NICs with > updated > > drivers, > > > set both sides to AUTO. Never, ever, set only one side to > AUTO. I'd > also > > > avoid manually configuring the speed and duplex unless you > have to do so > > to > > > fix a specific problem. Here's why: > > > > > > There is no standardized behavior for 100BaseTX when you > manually > > configure > > > settings! The only setting mentioned in the specification > is AUTO; the > > > behavior of the NIC with any other setting is up to the > vendor and not > > > everyone handles it the same way. Cisco appears to have > changed the way > > > they handle it, which is the cause of a lot of our problems. > > > > > > If you hard-set the speed and duplex there are two ways to > handle this: > > > > > > 1. Use the configured settings and still participate in > autonegotiation > > > only offering the configured settings. > > > > > > 2. Use the configured settings and do not participate in > autonegotiation > > > > > > Cisco's new switches seem to use option #2, while a great > number of our > > end > > > devices use option #1. Why is this a problem? Here's what > happens when > > you > > > connection an option #1 device to an option #2 device: > > > > > > #1 participates in autonegotiation, only offer the > configured settings. > > > #2 does not participate in autonegotiation at all and will > forcefully > use > > > the configured settings. > > > #1, seeing that there's nothing on the other side using > auto assumes it > is > > > connected to a HUB, and just might set itself to 10/Half > regardless of > the > > > manually configured settings! > > > > > > As you can guess, this is bad mojo. The moral of the story > is that you > > > should try to start using AUTO on BOTH sides if you're > using newer Cisco > > > switches, in particular the 2950 series. In some cases > this won't work > > and > > > you'll have to resort to manual settings. > > > > > > HTH, > > > John > > > > > > > > > >>> Priscilla Oppenheimer 3/10/03 10:58:56 AM >>> > > > Mike Momb wrote: > > > > > > > > To all, > > > > > > > > We recently replaced our Nortel switches and routers with > Cisco > > > > 2980 switches and 6509 routers. We have two buildings, 10 > > > > floors each and a router in each building. We have a > > > > combination of NT and Novell servers. After replacing > all > > > > this equipment, we have noticed that when we access files > on > > > > the NT servers, the speed is acceptable. When we access > files > > > > on the Novell servers, it is very very slow. Could the > > > > switches or routers be configured incorrectly for IPX. Is > > > > there something that we can change. On Cisco's web page > it > > > > mentioned something about enabling ipx > > > > broadcast-fastswitching. Any input or comments would be > > > > appreciated. > > > > > > I doubt that ipx broadcast-fastswitching will help you > unless you are > > using > > > an ipx helper-address. With ipx helper-address (just like ip > > helper-address) > > > you can tell a router to forward a broadcast, which it > normally doesn't > > do. > > > This would be useful for some rare IPX application that > sent broadcasts > > that > > > needed to reach the other side of the router. In typical > IPX networks, > > > there's no such need. When there is a need, you can speed > it up with the > > ipx > > > broadcast-fastswitching command. > > > > > > You titled your message "10 half or 100 full." I think this > was a > Freudian > > > slip. I bet your problem is related to a full-duplex > mismatch. Perhaps > the > > > NICs in the NT servers negotiated correctly but the NICs in > the Novell > > > servers did not and you have a mismatch. > > > > > > With a mismatch, the full duplex side will send whenever it > wants. The > > half > > > duplex will get upset if it sees the other side sending > while it is also > > > sending and will backoff and retransmist, leaving behind a > CRC-errored > > runt. > > > That side will reports a collision. The other side will > report runts and > > CRC > > > errors. > > > > > > So, look for lots of Ethernet errors when you do a show int > or show > port. > > > > > > Also feel free to send us the output of various show > commands and your > > > router config. There are some IPX gurus on this list. > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > > > www.priscilla.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > Mike > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64952&t=64931 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
