Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:32:17 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net> Cc: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" <peter@haloflightleader.net>, Sam Drinkard <sam@wa4phy.net>, sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10112261622210.78328-100000@athena.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011226181401.00ae1ec8@rfnj.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Allen Landsidel wrote: > >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. > > For auto-negotiation you are absolutely correct. Setting it manually on > just one end is the right way to do it, and often times, the only way to do it. Turning off auto-negotiation on one end, results in disabling auto-negotiation entirely. See the standard. If the your NIC does perform the capabilities negotiation with your switch, auto-negotiation is assumed to be not supported and the switch will default to half-duplex. The speed isn't an issue, as it easy to auto-detect speed. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10112261622210.78328-100000>