From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Dec 27 1:50:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from gscamnlm03.wr.usgs.gov (gscamnlm03.wr.usgs.gov [130.118.4.113]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCDC037B405; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:50:10 -0800 (PST) To: Tom Cc: Allen Landsidel , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" , Sam Drinkard , sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Robert L Sowders" Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:50:07 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on gscamnlm03/SERVER/USGS/DOI(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/27/2001 01:50:10 AM, Serialize complete at 12/27/2001 01:50:10 AM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0036085F88256B2F_=" 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 multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0036085F88256B2F_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Not true, nada. I've proved this over and over again. Let's agree to disagree and just move on. Tom Sent by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG 12/26/2001 04:22 PM To: "Peter/Los Angeles, CA" cc: Sam Drinkard , Allen Landsidel , sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.5 PRERELEASE - Call for testing On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, 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? It isn't strange at all. During auto-negotation both ends exchange a list of capabilities that they support, and they decide what capabilities to enable. If you disable auto-negotiate at one end, the end still doing auto-negotiating will default to half-duplex. The speed is only thing that can automaticatically detected. ... > 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. Not the duplex settings. If you disable auto-negotiating on your NIC, by forcing it to full-duplex, your auto-negotiating switch won't know what you support and default to half-duplex. If the duplex is mistmatched, everything seems to work, but there will be a 1 to 7% packet loss. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message --=_alternative 0036085F88256B2F_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Not true, nada.  I've proved this over and over again.  Let's agree to disagree and just move on.



Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
Sent by: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG

12/26/2001 04:22 PM

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



On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, 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?

 It isn't strange at all.  During auto-negotation both ends exchange a
list of capabilities that they support, and they decide what capabilities
to enable.  If you disable auto-negotiate at one end, the end still doing
auto-negotiating will default to half-duplex.  The speed is only thing
that can automaticatically detected.

...
> 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.

 Not the duplex settings.  If you disable auto-negotiating on your NIC,
by forcing it to full-duplex, your auto-negotiating switch won't know what
you support and default to half-duplex.  If the duplex is mistmatched,
everything seems to work, but there will be a 1 to 7% packet loss.


Tom


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

--=_alternative 0036085F88256B2F_=-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message