A late addition to the thread...
Priscilla is correct about using full duplex if it's a point to point link -
as long as the other end supports full duplex - not all of the older routers
do.
Another point to note is that the reported reliability of this link is only
250/255. Anything less than 25
I would clear the counters and wait a day and then post sho int again.
Collisions are normal but the other errors are an indication of possible
speed/duplex mismatch
Stan
-Original Message-
From: Steiven Poh-(Jaring MailBox) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 200
Just another thought to consider, your counters have never been cleared.
So if this router has been up for a long time who knows if it's just
people running around in the LAN room playing with cables or doing other
work that caused these errors 6 months ago. Otherwise you may want to
look at the h
The interface is set to half duplex. Collisions are a normal part of half
duplex Ethernet.
However, do you really need it to be confiugred as half duplex? What does it
connect to? If it connects to a single port like a router or switch port or
to a single workstation or server, then you can use fu
ay be true if the frame is 100Mb in size, but if it is a
> 1500 byte
> frame, then surely there is no difference in the capability of
> a 10Mb or
> 100Mb Ethernet to pass the frame?
>
> Symon
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL P
rue if the frame is 100Mb in size, but if it is a 1500 byte
frame, then surely there is no difference in the capability of a 10Mb or
100Mb Ethernet to pass the frame?
Symon
-Original Message-
From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 December 2002 23:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Larry Letterman wrote:
>
> Not the last word, but you imply that the collisions are only
> due to
> capacity...
> and I can have the wrong match on both ends and get plenty of
> collisions
> with no
> capacity issue.
It is a capcity issue. A collision results when the station set to half
dupl
Not the last word, but you imply that the collisions are only due to
capacity...
and I can have the wrong match on both ends and get plenty of collisions
with no
capacity issue.and I reserve the last word as always for you...where
have you been lately,
I have missed you :)
Priscilla O
Larry Letterman wrote:
>
> set one end to 100 half and the other to 100 full and see what
> happens:)
I mentioned the duplex mismatch problem too, but it has nothing to do with
his question or problem.
The key to troubleshooting is to address the actual problem, not some
assumption you make
set one end to 100 half and the other to 100 full and see what happens:)
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>Larry Letterman wrote:
>
>>Most likely the previous 10/half interface on the switch and
>>the router
>>were not
>>linked at the same speed/duplex or the other router had an
>>issue with
>>th
Larry Letterman wrote:
>
> Most likely the previous 10/half interface on the switch and
> the router
> were not
> linked at the same speed/duplex or the other router had an
> issue with
> the setting.
No, the switch and router were set to the same thing, which was 10 Mbps half
duplex, if you read
Most likely the previous 10/half interface on the switch and the router
were not
linked at the same speed/duplex or the other router had an issue with
the setting.
To be safe I would set the switch port and the router interface to
100/full or 10/full
and there should be no issues then.
and yes
Today, We are put 3660 router to their end, having Fastethernet card, and
connected to their switch.
They change their switch port as following:
interface FastEthernet0/14
load-interval 30
duplex full
so far, after observe serveral hours, there is no collision as well as not
error message in o
Hi Cliff,
Fastethernet wont cure the problem, you can still run that half duplex.
What causes the collisions is running in half duplex mode. Try upping it
to full duplex. What full duplex does is it disables the internal
loopback device i.e. collision checking ussually if you are plugged into
a sw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Question:
>
> I am just going to generalise here. Lets take just one port of
> a switch or
> one collision domain since that's what switches do.
>
> If we run 10 or 100 Half Duplex to a switch ... Is there a
> chance of a
> collision occuring?
Yes.
> If we then
Comments inline.
wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If we run 10 or 100 Half Duplex to a switch ... Is there a chance of a
> collision occuring?
Yes, definitely. Anytime you run half-duplex there is a possibility of
collisions.
> If we then run 10 or 100 Full
y, July 16, 2002 2:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Collision Detecting [7:48830]
You should not see collisions on a full duplex link...If you do there is
probably a duplex mismatch.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTE
You should not see collisions on a full duplex link...If you do there is
probably a duplex mismatch.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Collision
: RE: Collision Detecting [7:48830]
I am just going to generalise here. Lets take just one port of a switch or
one collision domain since that's what switches do.
If we run 10 or 100 Half Duplex to a switch ... Is there a chance of a
collision occuring?
If we then run 10 or 100 Full Duplex
I am just going to generalise here. Lets take just one port of a switch or
one collision domain since that's what switches do.
If we run 10 or 100 Half Duplex to a switch ... Is there a chance of a
collision occuring?
If we then run 10 or 100 Full Duplex to a switch ... Is there a chance of a
co
OTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Kohli, Jaspreet
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Collision Detecting [7:48830]
>
> Just confirming that when we say full duplex we are referring to
> switched
> networks over 100Mb. 10 Mb networks cannot
You can run at 10/FULL//
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Penn"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: Collision Detecting [7:48830]
> You are wrong =) That is OLD stuff that won't do 10/full
>
> Dan
> -Original Message-
> F
a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Collision Detecting [7:48830]
Curious wrote:
>
> Open Question
> How do we detect the source of collision, i am experiencing
> alot of
> collision on my LAN, which consisit of 10 Base T HUBS and
> 10/100 Switches, i
> am seeing alo
"Priscilla Oppenheimer" 7/15/02 4:02:46 PM
>>>
>Kohli, Jaspreet wrote:
>>
>> Just confirming that when we say full duplex we are referring
>> to switched networks over 100Mb. 10 Mb networks cannot run on
>> full duplex. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>Switched 10-Mbps Ethernet can use f
terfaces out there that don't support it, but theoretically it is supported.
Priscilla
>
> Jaspreet
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2002 5:25 a.m.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Curious wrote:
>
> Open Question
> How do we detect the source of collision, i am experiencing
> alot of
> collision on my LAN, which consisit of 10 Base T HUBS and
> 10/100 Switches, i
> am seeing alot of collision, but i dont know where is a Source,
> If some one
> knows how to detect the s
Define "alot" of collisions. In a hub-based LAN, collisions are normal and
to be expected. Chances are, you're within normal range.
At 02:04 PM 7/15/2002 +, you wrote:
>Open Question
>How do we detect the source of collision, i am experiencing alot of
>collision on my LAN, which consis
Do you have a protocol sniffer? Even etherreal may help.
""Curious"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Open Question
> How do we detect the source of collision, i am experiencing alot of
> collision on my LAN, which consisit of 10 Base T HUBS and 10/100 Switch
; minutes what happens,
> (resend the show int to us).
>
> Jim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Deane, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 10:14 AM
> To: 'rayza manesh'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: collision
>
>
Keep in mind that when Cisco puts 'load' on an interface, it's only refering
to transmit, not total. It seems like the versions of IOS ending in 'T'
list both 'tx load' and 'rx load' for convenience. Also, since this is
ethernet, does packets and bytes received on the interface refer to all
traf
...
reset the counters, and see over the next 10 to 30 minutes what happens,
(resend the show int to us).
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Deane, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 10:14 AM
To: 'rayza manesh'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: collision
Um
Remove some nodes from the segment.
Hope this ain't html IAN
Duck
- Original Message -
From: Cisco Study <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:55 PM
Subject: collision
> Hi all,
>
> could any one tell me why collisions counter increases
> on ethe
t: Re: collision
I have the same problem (collisions on the switch port connecting to a 10
base-t hub.) And the switch port is set on speed 10. Any idea?
Thanks
Rayza
>From: "Jim Deane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Jim Deane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL
I have the same problem (collisions on the switch port connecting to a 10
base-t hub.) And the switch port is set on speed 10. Any idea?
Thanks
Rayza
>From: "Jim Deane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Jim Deane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECT
I have seen collisions like this as a result of a duplex mismatch between
the router interface and the switch port. Autonegotiation doesn't always
work reliably, especially between vendors. You may want to specify the
speed and duplex of both the router's interface, and the switch port that
the
hi
i have connected my ethernet port on Baynetworks
switch of 10baseT.
Thanks ..
Sanjay
--- Rui Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is your router connected to a catalyst switch ?
> if so you should force the same speed and duplex in
> both the router and the
> switch ! ( the switch by default
Sorry for the late response on this one...
You will also see alignment errors if there is a
speed/duplex mismatch.
--- Chuck Larrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gentle correction - late collisions occur after the
> first 64 bytes of a
> frame have been placed on the wire.
>
> Essentially, a s
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 4:57 AM
> > To: ANIL.YADAV
> > Cc: Heskett, Tony; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: collision on cut-through switch
> >
> > A late collision usually occurs when one end of a s
, Tony; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: collision on cut-through switch
A late collision usually occurs when one end of a switched ethernet link
is set to full duplex but the other end of the link is set to half-duplex.
Darren
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, ANIL.YADAV wrote:
>
>
>
>
A late collision usually occurs when one end of a switched ethernet link
is set to full duplex but the other end of the link is set to half-duplex.
Darren
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, ANIL.YADAV wrote:
>
>
>
> How to avoid late collisions ?
>
> thanks
> Anil
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Heskett,
at the higher rate.
Regards
Atif Awan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
ANIL.YADAV
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:27 AM
To: Heskett, Tony
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: collision on cut-through switch
How to avoid late collisions
How to avoid late collisions ?
thanks
Anil
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Heskett, Tony wrote:
>
> Not a white paper, but let's see whether *I* understand
> how it's supposed to work
>
> Cut-thru waits for the dest addy, then starts forwarding.
>
> Frag-free waits for 64bytes, then starts forwa
The outgoing port is to a shared Ethernet in the scenario, as stated
in the original message. A collision could certainly occur. To
understand the issue, you have to think outside the box, so to speak.
;-) Remember Ethernet says listen before you send, but two stations
listening and hearing n
Are any current Cisco switches using cut through? The 5000s use Store and
Forward. The old Kalpana switches aka Catalyst 3000 used cut through.
Looking at an old EtherSwitch PRO16 manual (same same cat3k) it mentions
on-board buffering. "If the destination port is receiving a packet from
another E
On Nov 9, 8:23am, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
}
} I got into a discussion with a knowledgeable Sniffer instructor recently.
} When he teaches cut-through-switching theory, he warns his students that a
} cut-through switch does not really isolate collision domains. Consider this
} example:
}
On Nov 9, 9:48am, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
}
} The 1900 and 2820 Catalyst switches do cut-through. I did find a good white
} paper at:
}
} http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/switch/cat/c1928/tech/nwgen_wp.htm
}
} But it never comes right out and says what happens upon a collisio
Not a white paper, but let's see whether *I* understand
how it's supposed to work
Cut-thru waits for the dest addy, then starts forwarding.
Frag-free waits for 64bytes, then starts forwarding.
Store'n'forward waits for the whole packet and CRC's it,
so will only forward truly valid (tm) packe
t what you pay for.
David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: collision on cut-through switch
> The 190
Looking at this logically, I don't see how Cisco would not allow for this. A
fundamental function of a bridge (besides a layer 2 forwarding decision) is
to re-establish the slot time, thus making it a collision domain boundary.
If cut-through-switching negates extending the network diameter in the
The 1900 and 2820 Catalyst switches do cut-through. I did find a good white
paper at:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/switch/cat/c1928/tech/nwgen_wp.htm
But it never comes right out and says what happens upon a collision when
forwarding. I can guess based on the architecture, but
Hi, Priscilla,
I think the best way to find this out is to just get yourself a network
tester to connect between the transmitting host on port 1 and the CISCO box.
( like a FLUKE ) You will be able to see ( or not ) the JAMS on port 1. When
you connect the host in that segment only and there's a
51 matches
Mail list logo
