From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Dec 26 11: 4:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB11237B417 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3053 invoked by uid 1001); 26 Dec 2001 19:04:54 +0000 (GMT) To: all@biosys.net Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:02:11 -0500" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011226125628.00b08e10@rfnj.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:04:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3051.1009393494@verdi.nethelp.no> 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 > 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. It's certainly possible that we're using the wrong terminology. The observation still stands (supported by *lots* of examples in practice): If you manually set duplex at one end, and leave it unconfigured (ie. auto-negotiation) at the other end, you will often get a duplex mismatch. Please don't try to claim that this doesn't happen. It does - even with new equipment from well known manufacturers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message