[c-nsp] Cisco 2924XL Questions

[Paul Stewart]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks John for the detailed answers (this message and previous)....

I didn't realize the 2950 had these issues.. you have just saved me a
BUNCH of time and I thank you.... yeah, hehe.. the good old days of
duplex mismatches... *almost* miss some of that fun...;)

Paul


John Neiberger wrote:
| A word of warning to you if you should decide to replace the 2924XL with
| the 2950. If you are the sort who hard codes your speed and duplex on
| your devices then you're in for a potentially nasty shock with the 2950.
| If you are currently hard coding your settings, make sure to set both
| ends of your links to auto if you upgrade to a 2950.
|
| The 2924XL still participates in Nway autonegotiation if you manually
| specify the speed and duplex, but the 2950 does not. Some NICs (or NIC
| drivers) expect to see an Nway-capable device on the other end, and if
| they don't see one then they assume they're connected to a hub and they
| drop back to half duplex even when configured for full duplex. This can
| be a lot of fun if you're a masochist.
|
| Trust me on this one: if you're using 2950 switches, set both sides of
| all links to auto unless you run into a problem that cannot be fixed
| without hard-coding your settings. If you must manually specify your
| settings, 100/full still may not work well. If it doesn't, use
| 100/half.
|
| Sorry, I know that answers a question you weren't asking. :)  I just
| started having all these flashbacks from when we migrated away from
| 2924XLs to 2950s. Ah, the good old days of hunting down dozens and
| dozens of duplex mismatches...
|
| John
| --
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCgfqGqMetgU57IuQRAuMEAKCF/fKX722EuU/pgLvRWLyfafz5KACgiiy8
LiXizKm7VTOub24epZ3hR+g=
=Cwa+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----