From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 12 05:47:58 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD7A1065674 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:47:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from spork@bway.net) Received: from xena.bway.net (xena.bway.net [216.220.96.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6A18FC19 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43063 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jul 2011 05:47:57 -0000 Received: from smtp.bway.net (216.220.96.25) by xena.bway.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 12 Jul 2011 05:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 43046 invoked by uid 90); 12 Jul 2011 05:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.3.2.40?) (spork@bway.net@96.57.144.66) by smtp.bway.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 12 Jul 2011 05:47:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:47:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Sprickman X-X-Sender: spork@freemac To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <4E1BDD3F.4090607@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <20110706201509.GA5559@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20110707174233.GB8702@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385C32D96B7@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385F12FE86B@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <4E1BDD3F.4090607@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (OSX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: YongHyeon PYUN , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , David Christensen , David Christensen Subject: Re: bce packet loss X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 05:47:58 -0000 On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/11/2011 21:09, Charles Sprickman wrote: >> I've had it hammered into my brain over the years that for servers it's >> always best to set link speed and duplex manually at both ends to remove >> any possible issues with link negotiation. > > That hasn't been the right thing to do for at least 8 years or so, > probably 10 or more. > > Yes, back in the 90's when all of this stuff was still new it was not > uncommon to have autonegotiation issues, but any even sort of modern > hardware (on either side of the link) will do better with auto than not. Some of us still work at places where the hardware is 10 years old, you know. :) I do still see fixed setups in service provider handoffs - for example this colo, Level3 and Hurricane. Also all our metro ethernet stuff specifies a fixed configuration. >From what I can gather, this seems to be the standard practice in that space, but then again you're supposed to be plugging into equipment that wouldn't have the buffer issues that a $450 Dell switch would have. The rule I recall is never do autoneg on one side and fixed on the other, that more often than not will end up in a duplex mismatch. Charles > > hth, > > Doug > > -- > > Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. > -- OK Go > > Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. > Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ > >