From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 11 20:00:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAEC1065673 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A338FC08 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvc22 with SMTP id 22so4264467pvc.13 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:00:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:date:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=8A6N5AL9LRvUYxfwRr7XNZloK/7tRDmEsSG6eAZECwg=; b=aUGhQiVTCdnDs9rZgU+kTU55jTddApfNnn2iJHXvCAfI9F9shBFqjqOSaSU6qBVvXK Kq8lLydutD/b7aX164J4Zo36yfwXI4rs0VHpBrwPEYe116YQ4Y9kQyfFo5iYeQatr80R dmbXHOTpy5A8b+OFqonU1Q2iYLfXqPNj14sk8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=jP3HF5l2icUr0D83mg3r5M7Q2SFbFFJrxjttVxCALFICl4BOMGlD3/11q/W4dz7w8K xNecNA9LwVSjw7fETqlmDYdEoMaVV9ANYWgafAXMrIdC3/FYf9kA7sj1yaqt+yNZzgle fZBZbuReP9dHJ9n+JhZP7EU8fMj74csGaH4CI= Received: by 10.142.81.3 with SMTP id e3mr186614wfb.131.1294776043918; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([174.35.1.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b11sm9627035wff.9.2011.01.11.12.00.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:00:07 -0800 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:00:07 -0800 To: Lev Serebryakov Message-ID: <20110111200007.GC6278@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <1512738982.20110111124729@serebryakov.spb.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1512738982.20110111124729@serebryakov.spb.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Juniper e3k with ports limitied to 100Mbit and re NICs on MSI MoBo: problems with duplex negotiation (Hetzner host provider discard FreeBSD support due this bug) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:00:45 -0000 On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:47:29PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Freebsd-net. > > Very large and famous (due to very attractive prices) hosting > provider Hetzner.de discards FreeBSD support on dedicated servers, > because these servers can niot negotiate 100Mbit/DUPLEX when > switches' ports are limited to 100Mbit (1Gbit connection costs > additional money) only under FreeBSD. Linux works fine. > > Switches known to be Juniper e3k series. > > MoBos of servers are different assortment of MSI MoBos with Realtek > (re driver) network-on-board. > > Symptjms are: NIC can not negotiate/set duplex when switch port is > limited to 100Mbit/Duplex. Duplex can not be set even manually via > "ifconfig": > > > media: Ethernet 100baseTX (100baseTX ) > > Is it know problem? Maybe, -CURRENT driver has fix for it? > > Unfortunately, I can not provide more information, as I don't have > server at Hetzner (I'm planning to order one, but due to these > problems, I'm not sure now, as I need FreeBSD), and all this > information is collected in communication with people who HAVE servers > with FreeBSD installed. > > Again, I know, that Realtek NICs are crap, but "everybody says" that > Linux doesn't have THIS problem with THESE boards and switches. > I can see what's going on here. Link partner used forced media configuration, probably 100baseTX/full-duplex, and re(4)'s resolved link is 100baseTX/half-duplex. rgephy(4) currently always use auto-negotiation to work-around link establishment issues reported in past. I don't know how Linux managed to address link establishment issues for non-autonegotiation case though. Perhaps a lot of vendor supplied DSP fixups addressed that issue but I'm not sure. For your case, the only way to address the issue at this moment is to use auto-negotiation but that would establish 1000baseT link which would add cost for you. Alternatively request half-duplex configuration to the provider to get a agreed link duplex. See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/2011-January/013589.html for details on parallel detection.