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
f
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
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 ne
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
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.
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 t
Scott Roberts wrote:
>
> if I understand what you're saying, I think its always been
> like that, cisco
> hasn't changed it.
What he's saying is that if you manually configure the duplex mode, the IEEE
standards don't say if the port should participate in autonegotiation or
not. Since there's no
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
> be
The problem is that neither behavior is proper! :-) The only method
mentioned in the standard is autonegotiation. Any other setting, including
manually setting the speed and duplex, is non-standard and undefined.
I'm not aware of the frame-level details of Nway negotiation so I'm not sure
what
Hi Mike, all
I have come accress this problem when connecting Novell Servers/Clients to
Cisco switches, the solution is two things.
1/ enable spantree portfast on these cisco ports by:
set spantree portfast 6/3 enable
But be carefull this is good idea only for ports connecting to a single host
i
e because it's bound to sneak up on you
sooner or later.
John
>
>-Original Message-
>From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:59 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: 10 half or 100 full [7:64931]
>
>The problem is tha
I had a similar problem w/ some older Netware 5.x servers and a new HP
Procurve 4100gl switch. When I would set the speed/duplex manually on the
switch to match what the NetWare server was(100/Full), it was painfully
slow. When I set the switch port back to auto, everything was fine. The
servers we
We have quite a mix of NT/Novell/Sun servers. As for the Sun servers, over
half are set to auto. With those, we've only changed the settings when we
had an issue. With the Intel-based servers and workstations we've moved
most of them to auto.
We've had a few machines with older NICs where auto
am I missing.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 10 half or 100 full [7:64931]
>
> The problem is that neither behavior is proper! :-) The on
Are these Sun or Microsoft Intel servers you're running into? Its been my
experience with Sun servers to NEVER set them to auto. They almost never
work properly with auto set with both Cisco and Extreme switches. Manaully
setting them, to full 100Mbits does wonders to clear this problem up.
""J
>Elijah Savage wrote:
>>
>> I have been trying to follow this, and I still do not see why
>> we should
>> get away from the old Cisco switch courses that if you set both
>> sides to
>> 100 full duplex if they are capable you will be fine. I have
>> not seen
>> any situation where hard setting both
_tech_note
09186a00800a7af0.shtml#gen_tr_10_100
This link gives specific NIC cards and certain issues and also the Bug
ID's.
-Original Message-
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 10 half or 100 full [7
I see interesting, most of my sun servers are over 2 years old. You say
newer cisco switches should be set to auto first then manual if you have
problems. Do you mean newer as in version of IOS, OS or newer physical
hardware?
""John Neiberger"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> We have qu
Has anyone had this problem on a piece of Cisco kit that wasnt a 2950, and
if so was it CatOS or IOS. Im wondering if its an IOS bug or that model
switch rather than a generic problem.
It would be interesting to see the behavior of a 6500 running CatOS and IOS
and see if the behavior is the same.
Interestingly, just now I fixed a problem with a Sun Netra server that was
set to autonegotiate. It was connected to a 6500 that was hard-set to
100/Full. Since manually setting the speed on a 6500 disables participation
in autonegotiation, the server was choosing 100/Half instead of 100/Full.
S
erger
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: 10 half or 100 full [7:64931]
Interestingly, just now I fixed a problem with a Sun Netra server that was
set to autonegotiate. It was connected to a 6500 that was hard-set to
100/Full. Since manually se
21 matches
Mail list logo
