From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Dec 26 10: 2:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from rfnj.org (rfnj.org [216.239.237.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F6D37B416 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:02:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from megalomaniac.biosys.net (megalomaniac.rfnj.org [216.239.237.200]) by rfnj.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6371C137DB; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:03:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011226125628.00b08e10@rfnj.org> X-Sender: asym@rfnj.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:02:11 -0500 To: sthaug@nethelp.no From: Allen Landsidel Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <2353.1009389293@verdi.nethelp.no> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011226123443.00aafe40@rfnj.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 06:54 PM 12/26/2001 +0100, you wrote: > > This is a pretty silly, uninformed response. First, just off the top, it > > doesn't make any sense. What if you have a "dumb" auto-negotiating > > switch? I have such a switch, a Linksys EtherFast II 16port > 10/100. There > > is no way to tell the switch what setting any of the ports should be in, > > nor have I ever needed such an option. > >As long as auto-negotiation works (and any cards plugged into this switch >are set to auto-negotiate), you should be fine. Autonegotiation should always work. It's a standard. Autosensing isn't, and that's why it's been replaced/superceeded. > > The switch has never failed to negotiate the correct setting with whatever > > is plugged into it, nor has it ever had a problem matching whatever I > > assign to an interface I have plugged into it. > >If whatever you plug into the switch is set *not* to autonegotiate (ie. >is set manually to full duplex), you cannot count on the switch to get >the duplex setting correct. In some cases it'll work, in other cases >it won't. If it always works for you - great. But don't count on this >working as a general rule - there are plenty of examples to disprove it. You're confusing two things, auto-negotiation and auto-sensing, as is Tom. Auto-negotiation is *always* on, even if you force a certain speed/duplex. This is what tells the switch/hub/whatever it's settings. Auto-sensing is the old method if determining the line speed only, not the duplex, and was full of all kinds of problems. As a general rule, if you have an auto *negotiating* switch/hub and an auto *negotiating* NIC, then this will always work. If one or or the other is auto *sensing* then problems may occur, but this is why the two terms exist, and why auto-sensing hasn't been available for quite some time. Tom's reply stated that if you turned auto-negotiation off by forcing a speed/duplex setting on either end that it would cause problems. This simply isn't true because you can't turn auto-negotating off, and forcing a speed/duplex setting doesn't do this.. what it does do is forces the other end to negotiate this setting, if it is available. The negotiation still occurs. > > I think perhaps you should stop repeating yourself and go read up on how > > autonegotiation actually works.. what you've been saying is only true (in > > my experience) if you're plugging one NIC directly into another via a > > crossover cable. > >He's certainly not the only one who firmly believes that one end set to >auto-negotiate and one end set manually is a good way to create problems >for yourself. See above. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message