FE over Type 1 [7:5029]
One warning about this: make sure there is an adapter cable connected on BOTH ends of the type 1 cabling; if you have a case where a disconnection is made on one of the IBM connectors, you have a pair of ethernet loopback cables... If your switch is set to full duplex, this may result in a packet accelerator (you will suddenly run to maximal utilization everywhere in that broadcast domain ...) Likewise if you have autonegotiate enabled, and do not disable FD as possibilities, you may find a similar situation. (I have experienced and tracked this down due to some other person's (serial) errors) If you intend to go 100Mb over Type1, I would recommend that you nail your type 1 connected ports to Half Duplex only, that way if something is disconnected improperly, you will not cripple your entire broadcast domain... instead the port will light up like a christmas tree (with collisions)... which I prefer greatly to the alternative of losing a whole broadcast domain Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5029&t=5029 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7500 / 12.1(8a)E2 ... dCEF and named ACL [7:30876]
It seems that using named access lists on an interface has the effect of disabling dCEF (centralized CEF works still)... changing back to numbered acl's (with the same ACL) seems to get dCEF going again... I havent been able to find any such issues listed in the bug navigator... has anyone else run into this sort of issue ? (I am running 12.1(8a)E2 for dNBAR, anything later than 12.1(8a)E2 seems to hang quite solidly. but thats another issue ;) tia for any info. -j. -- John W Reames / Director, Academic Computing, Morgan State University, MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://jewel.morgan.edu/~reames / Fax: 410-319-3604 Calloway Hall Rm 326 / Voice: 443-885-3512 / Voicemail: 443-885-4502 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30876&t=30876 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6509 switch [7:31251]
I have had lots of FCS and collision errors on ports where one end is full duplex and the other half. [this is on general with switches, i dont think its 6509 specific] check his PC's nic settings re: FDx and speed, autonegotiation and compare that to the 6509 port's. I'd suspect that his PC is probably half duplexing and the switch is full. BTW you probably want to just nail the port (and NIC) to a given speed and duplex. -j. -- John W Reames / Director, Academic Computing, Morgan State University, MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://jewel.morgan.edu/~reames / Fax: 410-319-3604 Calloway Hall Rm 326 / Voice: 443-885-3512 / Voicemail: 443-885-4502 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31307&t=31251 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catalyst 2900XL's (and 3500's) [7:42687]
My understanding is the Cat2950's replace the 2900XL's, and that with the exception of the 3508G's and the 3524-PWR's the 3500 line is EOI (i think july 1?). The 3550 is a 'suggested' replacement for the 3500Xl, and the pricing is supposed to drop on the 3550's. Bear in mind that the 3550 is a pretty nice little box; it does ip routing and will out-forward the 4232-L3 blade... -j. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42797&t=42687 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
