From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Dec 26 16:30:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from haloflightleader.net (adsl-63-197-56-193.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.197.56.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA4737B41B; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:30:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ongppla (hogan-and-hartson-llp.Washington.cw.net [208.173.12.150]) by haloflightleader.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id fBR0UK906812; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:30:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@haloflightleader.net) Message-ID: <01dd01c18e6d$9847b420$245b1486@hhlaw.com> From: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" To: , "Robert L Sowders" Cc: "Allen Landsidel" , , , "Sam Drinkard" , References: Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:29:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D8_01C18E2A.847ADE60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01D8_01C18E2A.847ADE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Look, I'm not for flames myself, but I have to say it gets a whole lot = more interesting when there's a forest fire going on. It's like a Jerry = Springer show except it's really quiet. Peter ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert L Sowders=20 To: ulf@Alameda.net=20 Cc: Allen Landsidel ; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG ; = owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG ; Peter/Los Angeles, CA ; Sam Drinkard = ; sthaug@nethelp.no=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:44 PM Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing This should be moved to chat, hardware, hackers, you pick it.=20 Regardless of what the standard says, it has been my experience that = if you have a connection that fails to autoneg to full duplex, then = forcing the freebsd nic to 100 full will result in the expected behavior = of a 100 full connection. During the negotiation phase the nic says I = can only do 100 full and the switch responds with 100 full.=20 Recent experience with HP-Procurve and NBase Mega switches confirmed = that they continually refused to autoneg 100 full until the nics were = forced to 100 full. Subsequently turning the nics back to autoneg = produced 100 full connections. Why this occurred is beyond me, but = after three days of testing that was the fix.=20 It may be that this is not the experience of the other readers of this = thread. That's fine, all I'm saying is, if you're having trouble with = full duplex then try forcing the nic to full and see what happens, it = works for me.=20 This really should be moved off stable now.=20 Ulf Zimmermann =20 Sent by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG=20 12/26/2001 02:29 PM=20 Please respond to ulf=20 =20 To: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" = =20 cc: Sam Drinkard , Allen = Landsidel , sthaug@nethelp.no, = freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG=20 Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing=20 On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:22:15PM -0800, Peter/Los Angeles, CA wrote: > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it kind of strange that > auto-sensing/auto-negotiating must be enabled on both sides for the = feature > to work a bit strange? >=20 > At home, I have a Netgear FS116, a 16-Port unmanaged switch. It is > auto-sensing/full-duplex 10/100Mbits/sec switch. Therefore, we = cannot > control how it will behave. >=20 > On the other hand, I have network cards on my computer which I can = set to > full/half/auto/10/100, whatever combination I like, and yet, the = switch will > continue to work. >=20 > What I'm getting at is that just because one end is not set to > auto-negotiate/auto-sense that there will be no communication at = all. Say, > that one end is set manually, and the other end is automatic. The = automatic > end will set itself to the parameters of the one that is manually = set. This > is how my network works. Thus, I don't believe that both ends, need = to be > set the same way in order to work in this scenario. >=20 > The automatic will automatically negotiate/auto-sense to whatever = can't be > changed, as a result, they work. Or is this even what you folks are = arguing > about? I do not know if this is written in the standard, but I have seen = devices where if you turn off AutoNeg, they won't respond at all to the = packets. But I have also seens devices which will still respond, but just to = their fixed setting. I personal prefer it that if I turn off autoneg, it = won't do anything, because that gives you a fixed point. Any production = system I always set switch and host to full 100. --=20 Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://seven.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message ------=_NextPart_000_01D8_01C18E2A.847ADE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Look, I'm not for flames myself, but I = have to say=20 it gets a whole lot more interesting when there's a forest fire going = on. =20 It's like a Jerry Springer show except it's really quiet.
 
Peter
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Robert = L=20 Sowders
Cc: Allen Landsidel ; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG= ; owner-freebsd-stable@Fre= eBSD.ORG=20 ; Peter/Los Angeles, CA ; = Sam Drinkard = ; sthaug@nethelp.no=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, = 2001 3:44=20 PM
Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - = Call for=20 testing


This should be = moved to chat,=20 hardware, hackers, you pick it.

Regardless of what the standard says, it has been my = experience that if=20 you have a connection that fails to autoneg to full duplex, then = forcing the=20 freebsd nic to 100 full will result in the expected behavior of a 100 = full=20 connection.  During the negotiation phase the nic says I can only = do 100=20 full and the switch responds with 100 full.

Recent experience with HP-Procurve and = NBase Mega=20 switches confirmed that they continually refused to autoneg 100 full = until the=20 nics were forced to 100 full.  Subsequently turning the nics back = to=20 autoneg produced 100 full connections.  Why this occurred is = beyond me,=20 but after three days of testing that was the fix.

It may be that this is not the experience = of the other=20 readers of this thread.  That's fine, all I'm saying is, if = you're having=20 trouble with full duplex then try forcing the nic to full and see what = happens, it works for me.

This=20 really should be moved off stable now.



Ulf Zimmermann=20 <ulf@Alameda.net>
Sent=20 by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG=20

12/26/2001 02:29 PM =
Please respond to ulf

        =
        To: =    =20    "Peter/Los Angeles, CA"=20 <peter@haloflightleader.net>
        cc:       =  Sam=20 Drinkard <sam@wa4phy.net>, Allen Landsidel = <all@biosys.net>,=20 sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
        Subject: =  =20      Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for=20 testing


On=20 Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:22:15PM -0800, Peter/Los Angeles, CA = wrote:
>=20 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it kind of strange = that
>=20 auto-sensing/auto-negotiating must be enabled on both sides for the=20 feature
> to work a bit strange?
>
> At home, I = have a=20 Netgear FS116, a 16-Port unmanaged switch.  It is
>=20 auto-sensing/full-duplex 10/100Mbits/sec switch.  Therefore, we=20 cannot
> control how it will behave.
>
> On the = other hand,=20 I have network cards on my computer which I can set to
>=20 full/half/auto/10/100, whatever combination I like, and yet, the = switch=20 will
> continue to work.
>
> What I'm getting at is = that=20 just because one end is not set to
> auto-negotiate/auto-sense = that=20 there will be no communication at all.  Say,
> that one end = is set=20 manually, and the other end is automatic.  The automatic
> = end will=20 set itself to the parameters of the one that is manually set.=20  This
> is how my network works.  Thus, I don't = believe that=20 both ends, need to be
> set the same way in order to work in = this=20 scenario.
>
> The automatic will automatically=20 negotiate/auto-sense to whatever can't be
> changed, as a = result, they=20 work.  Or is this even what you folks are arguing
> = about?

I=20 do not know if this is written in the standard, but I have seen=20 devices
where if you turn off AutoNeg, they won't respond at all to = the=20 packets.
But I have also seens devices which will still respond, = but just=20 to their
fixed setting. I personal prefer it that if I turn off = autoneg, it=20 won't
do anything, because that gives you a fixed point. Any = production=20 system
I always set switch and host to full 100.

-- =
Regards,=20 = Ulf.

-------------------------------------------------------------= --------
Ulf=20 Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: = 510-865-0204
You can=20 find my resume at: http://seven.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html

To = Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe=20 freebsd-stable" in the body of the=20 message


------=_NextPart_000_01D8_01C18E2A.847ADE60-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message