From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 27 13:50:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00CF106568A for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net) Received: from mail2.albyny.inoc.net (mail2.albyny.inoc.net [64.22.32.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FF98FC22 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:50:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=inoc.net; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date; b=Mcj3BujaTTvQTItFFUUV2apIGe/c+cKsRzjkyVAXE1SdUpbFJlfsJGJq6bNsUKBm4lM25zLBKHkk1zaLq0CEreyET0sZOTsgxg/1ooGnwLhoj47+PBX0BLeF0OyKhI1MbgrdToyI/IxKNHmditM0vcr690zrgq8To2Lhco66lXM=; Received: from void.ops.inoc.net (vanguard.noc.albyny.inoc.net [64.246.135.8]) by mail2.albyny.inoc.net (build v9.0.20) with ESMTP id 684668-1941382 for multiple; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:50:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Robert Blayzor To: Steven Hartland In-Reply-To: <6BEB103BC10F4C7FBF4A84D95A45B54E@multiplay.co.uk> X-Priority: 3 References: <002801c9803e$3bb0f3f0$c701000a@engineer> <20090127053750.GJ58991@cesium.hyperfine.info> <6BEB103BC10F4C7FBF4A84D95A45B54E@multiplay.co.uk> Message-Id: <55917DE5-3874-484D-9168-4FE1BBE9D6FA@inoc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:50:02 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-6.x/7.x 1000BaseTX connection problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:50:04 -0000 On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > We have never had a problem with FreeBSD and Cisco using em > and bge. They do take a while to come up but that's just > Cisco being Cisco. By default all ports participate in spanning-tree, which is probably any delay you're seeing. You can setup host ports by explicitly setting them up as access ports and then turning on "spanning-tree portfast". That makes the ports come up almost immediately. I've never had a problem with Intel (em/fxp) or Broadcom (bge/bce) using auto-neg on any Cisco switch made in the last 8-10 years. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/