From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul  7 18:11:44 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 65FEA106566B;
	Thu,  7 Jul 2011 18:11:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidch@broadcom.com)
Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372B08FC08;
	Thu,  7 Jul 2011 18:11:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.9.200.131] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom
	SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:14:19 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: D3C04415-6FA8-4F2C-93C1-920E106A2031
Received: from IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.252.49.30]) by
	IRVEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.9.200.131]) with mapi; Thu, 7
	Jul 2011 11:09:31 -0700
From: "David Christensen" <davidch@broadcom.com>
To: "pyunyh@gmail.com" <pyunyh@gmail.com>, "Charles Sprickman" <spork@bway.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:09:30 -0700
Thread-Topic: bce packet loss
Thread-Index: Acw8zX/W9Qq7wyF4Q+2VJIhJOlMN2AAAb8eA
Message-ID: <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819385C32D9347@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1107042113000.2407@freemac>
	<20110706201509.GA5559@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1107070121060.2407@freemac>
	<20110707174233.GB8702@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110707174233.GB8702@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 620B28F162O20917716-02-01
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>,
	David Christensen <davidch@freebsd.org>
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 <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:11:44 -0000

> > Any thoughts on that?  It's the only thing that differs between the
> two
> > switches.
> >
>=20
> This makes me think possibility of duplex mismatch between bce(4)
> and link partner. You should not use forced media configuration on
> 1000baseT link. If you used manual media configuration on bce(4)
> and link partner used auto-negotiation, resolved duplex would be
> half-duplex. It's standard behavior and Duplex mismatch can cause
> strange problems.
> I would check whether link partner also agrees on the resolved
> speed/duplex of bce(4).

Forced link speed at 1000Mbps is not supported by the IEEE
specification, you MUST use auto-negotiation at 1000Mbps (though
you can advertise support for 1000Mb only to simulate forced
operation). =20

Duplex mismatch usually manifests with collision/deferred=20
transmission errors on the link partner configured for=20
half-duplex.  The bce(4) driver does support those statistics.

Dave