From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar  8 08:40:17 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D9116A420
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Mar 2006 08:40:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dualcyclone@gmail.com)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E784F43D48
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Mar 2006 08:40:16 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dualcyclone@gmail.com)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so132967nzc
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:40:16 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=GpmkePtq+KLp2+rXaNkWGqurPFA1kAYLMGNHqDiJTYo6kdZII3wnoj6HPNrQsQfwDKDa8D/+FvIZspF8XmHSsReAwKdZFdeJPrQw5JtWfeRt4BkwJNuTmIw5LymX8WVN+YvL5Jj9HEgT6K+8CAoAPG/a0qmEuoE5hof8pqE4/ug=
Received: by 10.65.157.18 with SMTP id j18mr221146qbo;
	Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.65.103.8 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 00:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ad7542dc0603080040p35956b28r@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:40:15 +0000
From: "tony sarendal" <dualcyclone@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <440CB05E.6000805@netfence.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <440C961A.1060107@netfence.it> <20060306211542.U87940@unsane.co.uk>
	<440CB05E.6000805@netfence.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Subject: Re: vr0: rx packet lost
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:40:17 -0000

On 06/03/06, Andrea Venturoli <ml.diespammer@netfence.it> wrote:
>
> Vince Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > This may sound silly but if performance is that bad have you checked if
> > you have a Duplex mismatch ? (one side set to full manually and the
> > other to auto commonly results in duplex mismatches in my experience.
> > (see http://www.cites.uiuc.edu/network/autosense.html or use google for
> > more info)
>
> Hm, my switch isn't manageable, so it can't be set manually to
> full-duplex and must be using autosense.
> As for the card:
>
> > ifconfig vr0
> > vr0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> >         inet 10.1.2.125 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 10.255.255.255
> >         inet6 fe80::213:d4ff:fecc:a6a2%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> >         ether 00:13:d4:cc:a6:a2
> >         media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
> >         status: active
>
> This was configured through rc.conf with:
>
> > ifconfig_vr0=3D"DHCP"
>
>
> So I guess this is not the problem.


There are cases where equipment don't get along and
autoneg doesn't work. Try setting your end to 10M/half duplex
and see if you still have the problem.

/Tony