From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 09:40:50 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 89CD41065672 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:40:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) Received: from ftp.translate.ru (ftp.translate.ru [80.249.188.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465108FC0A for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (89.112.15.178.pppoe.eltel.net [89.112.15.178]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by ftp.translate.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4B42F13DF5F; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:40:48 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:40:45 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1902620205.20110113124045@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Artem Belevich In-Reply-To: References: <36074996.20110112192009@serebryakov.spb.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:40:50 -0000 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