Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:22:10 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> 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 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10112261617120.78328-100000@athena.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <011601c18e5b$cb3b16e0$245b1486@hhlaw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10112261617120.78328-100000>