auto negotiation it must
allow manually overriding of the function (IE.. an unconfigurable device is
not allowed to auto-negotiate.)
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Weird
Hi there, no that is not normal. How long is the cat5 between the two?
Also, with a hub you should normally see collisions but not crc errors.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi, this is kind of a newbie question but this doesn't make a whole lot of
sense :P
I have an etherstack
Check your duplex settigs you may also want to test with another cable.
Thanks,
Mario Puras
SoluNet Technical Support
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Direct: (321) 309-1410
888.449.5766 (USA) / 888.SOLUNET (Canada)
-Original Message-
From: Drew Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Title: RE: Weird networking issue.
By nature, a hub is half-duplex - it's a repeater.
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David G. Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc
-7509- 3548 test
environment.
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David G. Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Weird networking
David G. Andersen wrote:
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection. [...]
I'd like to thank Cisco for this piece of advice, as the only company
incapable of
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun's hme cards won't go full duplex even though they advertise it to
remote switch, causing immense headaches to anyone with Sun gear...
That is just not true. I've had several Sun boxes with hme interfaces
properly autoneg into 100/full with
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Charles Youse wrote:
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
Yes it will. It will cause CRC errors/RX underflows/RX frags/RX align on
one end and late collissions on the other end depending on which one is
running half duplex and which one is running full
### On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:32:15 +0100 (CET), Mikael Abrahamsson
### [EMAIL PROTECTED] casually decided to expound upon '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
### [EMAIL PROTECTED] the following thoughts about RE: Weird networking
### issue.:
MA On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MA
MA Sun's hme cards
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jake Khuon wrote:
problems in the past, namely a bunch of E4500s to some 5000-series switches.
Since they were in remote datacenters, I did pin the interfaces on both
ends.
I've seen problems with 3548:s and Sun le-interfaces though, sometimes the
link would only see
At 10:32 PM 1/7/2003 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun's hme cards won't go full duplex even though they advertise it to
remote switch, causing immense headaches to anyone with Sun gear...
That is just not true. I've had several Sun boxes with
: Weird networking issue.
David G. Andersen wrote:
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection. [...]
I'd like to thank Cisco for this piece of advice, as the only company
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Braun, Mike wrote:
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than
Message-
From: Braun, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Weird networking issue.
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should
be avoided whenever possible. When you are looking
Peter E. Fry wrote:
[...] the only [...]
Yeah, *that* is a nutty statement. I could re-phrase, but I think
most here get the intent.
Peter E. Fry
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors
on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than I have seen problems generated by
At 05:36 PM 1/7/2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Braun, Mike wrote:
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the
errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than I have seen problems generated by
At 03:17 PM 07-01-03 -0600, Peter E. Fry wrote:
David G. Andersen wrote:
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection. [...]
I'd like to thank Cisco for this piece of
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So thats human error not a problem with using forced settings, eliminate the
human error and I think you'll see forced always works, autoneg sometimes
works. (For future reference dont employ incompetent people to run your networks
folks!)
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection.
I'd wager you've got half duplex set on one side, and full on the other...
-Dave
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:19:10PM -0500, Drew
21 matches
Mail list logo
