* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Donahue) [Tue 09 Dec 2008, 00:03 CET]:
Niels Bakker wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Tech) [Mon 08 Dec 2008, 17:04 CET]:
What is the difference/concept behind the master - slave config?
http://kc.forticare.com/default.asp?id=3780&Lang=1 came up in a quick
google search, you may find it enlightening - especially the bit about
autonegotiation being required for 1000baseT by the IEEE
Although there may have been improvements in auto-negotiation, the
following statement from the article is untrue:
'The notion of “auto-negotiation is unreliable” can no longer be
substantiated.'
In the context of GigabitEthernet...
Considering in the past 6 months I have run into 4 endpoints that had
auto-negotiation issues, I would argue that statements like this are
not definitive and are not necessarily correct. Given, all of this
equipment was connecting at 100 Mb, not 1Gb, but there are times when
specifying your port speed is necessary. I would say that in 99.9% of
cases auto-negotiation is reliable, but you may run into times when
there are issues.
And then you come up with an example at 100baseTX.
(Have you really hooked up four thousand devices in the past 6 months?)
(The end points had issues connecting to both Foundry and Cisco
switches on different cable paths including a regular patch cable.)
So, broken end points, them being the common denominator. I've seen the
same happen; had Foundry investigate the one case I had with that, turns
out end points did not actually properly implement Ethernet.
The linked article pointed out that for 1000base-X the IEEE mandated
autonegotiation and interop testing of same. That's why the claim about
it working well was made. Of course prestandard gear won't match up.
-- Niels.
--
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
