From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 14 21:18:44 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE7416A401 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:18:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mpope@teksavvy.com) Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (ironport2-out.pppoe.ca [206.248.154.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E880F13C461 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:18:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mpope@teksavvy.com) Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca ([65.39.192.132]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2007 16:18:43 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,170,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="1196276:sNHT22424892" Received: from [10.1.1.173] ([69.28.228.189]) by smtp.pppoe.ca (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id TXG95642; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:18:42 -0500 Message-ID: <45D37DAA.4050101@teksavvy.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:22:50 -0500 From: Matthew Pope User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Barniskis References: <45CF9010.7040905@teksavvy.com> <448xf3hw0f.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <45D20B9C.8080602@teksavvy.com> <45D2198B.9020104@scls.lib.wi.us> In-Reply-To: <45D2198B.9020104@scls.lib.wi.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RESOLVED: Connection timed out X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:18:44 -0000 Greg, Your email was very helpful. I isolated the freebsd box, and the win2K box on a LAN without connection to the upstream Cisco device, and all the connectivity problems went away. I'll be implementing the 'turn off STP' on those Cisco ports shortly. Many thanks, Matthew Greg Barniskis wrote: > Matthew Pope wrote: > >> I find that during the blocking behaviour, when I try and ping the >> windows box, a tcpdump shows that each second ping attempt is >> followed by a response (it appears) from an IPv6 address... > > >> 13:30:51.066625 802.1d config 8000.00:30:19:53:05:00.8011 root >> 8000.00:30:19:53:05:00 pathcost 0 age 0 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15 >> 13:30:53.069431 802.1d config 8000.00:30:19:53:05:00.8011 root >> 8000.00:30:19:53:05:00 pathcost 0 age 0 max 20 hello 2 fdelay 15 > > > If you're referring to the above samples as "appears from IPV6", those > are Spanning Tree Protocol packets originating from the Cisco switch, > and are unrelated to your ping test. You will see them on the wire > frequently even in the absence of any normal IP traffic. > > You probably want the following Cisco configuration directive added to > those switch ports that do not connect the 2900 to other switches: > > spanning-tree portfast > > The presence of the STP packets may or may not be related to your > performance issues. They shouldn't be, but some buggy NICs/drivers do > seem to get freaked out by STP. > > When STP is enabled on a switch port, it definitely will delay your > initial link establishment by 30 seconds or so, when the attached > computer is first powered up. That alone can confuse things when the > NIC is trying to negotiate a link speed and the switch is still > thinking about STP. It's even possible that you're getting a link > speed/duplex mismatch out of it, and of course that will play holy > hell with your response time. > >