Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:40:45 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Artem Belevich <artemb@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] re(4) problems on networks with disabled autonegotiation "solver" (WAS: Juniper e3k with ports limitied to...) -- REQUEST FOR REVIEW Message-ID: <1902620205.20110113124045@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Q%2B-uXF0miy=AbH8fi%2BMS=13FKKtnf8wO4jv%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <36074996.20110112192009@serebryakov.spb.ru> <AANLkTi=Q%2B-uXF0miy=AbH8fi%2BMS=13FKKtnf8wO4jv%2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Artem. You wrote 12 =FF=ED=E2=E0=F0=FF 2011 =E3., 23:59:58: >> =A0I've documented this new tunable in re(4) manpage, as here is no >> rgephy(4) manpage. > I wonder if we could make autonegotiation another media option. > This may solve the problem at hand in a more generic way. It is better way, of course, but I'm not feel competent enough for such changes. > In case someone specifies speed/duplex settings but want > autonegotiation on, we can advertise only that particular speed/duplex > capability (as opposed to advertising everything we support). This It is exactly as re/rgephy wroks now -- autonegotiation with limited capabilities. > would force remote end to either establish the link with the > parameters we want or keep the link down which would be better than > keeping the link up with mismatched duplex settings. In case, when remote end SUPPORTS autonegotiation ;-) --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1902620205.20110113124045>