Networking [was Re: NFS Question]

[Ken Ambrose]

Speaking as an X-Cisco-ite, when we wanted to be -sure- that a given piece
of equipment (Sun, PC, whatever) would be able to get on the network
properly, we pegged duplex/speed at _both_ ends.  Otherwise, while it
wasn't all that often, you were asking for trouble.

-Ken

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 pll at lanminds.com wrote:

>
> In a message dated: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:19:21 EDT
> "Derek D. Martin" said:
>
> >We were using (actual genuine bonifide) Tulip chips with Cisco
> >switches; this combination of hardware is known to have issues with
> >autonegotiation, according to some post I found by Donald Becker
> >somewhere on some website.  :)
>
> Actually, I've come to the conclusion that the combination of any NIC
> and auto-neg with Cisco gear is a recipe for disaster.
>
> I actually had a Cisco rep tell me *today* that:
>
> 	"There has been nothing in the last 2 years related to
> 	 auto-negotion problems where we've been able to identify
> 	 it as a problem specific to Cisco.  It has always
> 	 been a problem with the NIC driver!"
>
> Yet I remember quite clearly at MCL, the networking guys getting an
> IOS bug report telling them to upgrade to version 11.mumble of IOS to
> eliminate the auto-neg problem with Intel EEPro100 NICs.
>
> The same guy also told me that no matter what NIC you use, if you
> hard-set one side and leave the other side auto-neg, you will always
> end up getting an auto-neg conflict on the duplex side.  He blames
> the spec, which it might be, since it is a crappy spec.  Yet I've
> never seen this with *any* other vendor combination; Bay/Nortel,
> 3Com, Allied Telesyn, etc.
> --
>
> Seeya,
> Paul
> --
> 	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
>    but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
>
> 	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>
>