I am able to do everything over this connection. I don't understand what the
"carrier" error means. 
All that I can surmise from the fact that  all the "carrier" errors are
happening on the TX side of 
interface is that is the side of the eth2 NIC that is talking to the only
"none LNE100-TX" NIC in
my network. (my Linux server)
Or do I have it backwards? 
I know my cabling is good. I don't use a hub or switch. I use crossover
cables that I know are 
good. I am just going to switch that final NIC and see if my problems go
away. Here's to hoping!

Thanks again to all of you that have helped me out. Have a great weekend!!


Troy


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Ray Olszewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Friday, October 11, 2002 11:30 AM
To:     troy
Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:        RE: [leaf-user] RE:DMZ configuration problems

At 09:27 AM 10/11/02 -0600, troy wrote:
>         It turned out that eth2 was a startek NIC. The rest of my NICs
>are Linksys LNE100-TX. I bought another LNE100-TX nad that fixed the
>problem. I am still getting some errors when I check eth2 but I think
>that is because the NIC in my Linux server in the dmz is not a Linksys
>LNE100-TX. Hopefully when I replace that NIC the errors will go away
>entirely. Here is the reading I get on eth2. (See below) I am not
>entirely sure what to make of it but I am hoping that the errors are
>caused by the NIC in my Linux server. Thanks for all the help guys!
>
>Troy
>
>eth2:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
>     link/ether 00:04:5a:83:69:6a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>     RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
>     150248933  1331746  0       0       0       0
>     TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
>     0          0        1957210 0       1957210 0

You say you are "still getting some errors when I check eth2"?

Some? The report above says that all TX packets failed due to "carrier" 
reasons. Are you able to do anything over this conenection?

I'm not clear on what ip reports as a "carrier" problem, but the name 
prompts me to look for a hardware problem ... bad NIC at one end or the 
other (as you've already surmised), bad cable, or bad hub/switch. (Or 
conceivably bad NIC-to-NIC handshaking if you're using a crossover cable 
rather thn a hub or switch.)

Does anyone actually know what the "carrier" designator means in this 
report? I'm only guessing, as I said.



--
-------------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"--------
Ray Olszewski                                   -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, California, USA                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html

Reply via email to