Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:50:02 -0500 From: Robert Blayzor <rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-6.x/7.x 1000BaseTX connection problem Message-ID: <55917DE5-3874-484D-9168-4FE1BBE9D6FA@inoc.net> In-Reply-To: <6BEB103BC10F4C7FBF4A84D95A45B54E@multiplay.co.uk> References: <002801c9803e$3bb0f3f0$c701000a@engineer> <20090127053750.GJ58991@cesium.hyperfine.info> <6BEB103BC10F4C7FBF4A84D95A45B54E@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > We have never had a problem with FreeBSD and Cisco using em > and bge. They do take a while to come up but that's just > Cisco being Cisco. By default all ports participate in spanning-tree, which is probably any delay you're seeing. You can setup host ports by explicitly setting them up as access ports and then turning on "spanning-tree portfast". That makes the ports come up almost immediately. I've never had a problem with Intel (em/fxp) or Broadcom (bge/bce) using auto-neg on any Cisco switch made in the last 8-10 years. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55917DE5-3874-484D-9168-4FE1BBE9D6FA>