[c-nsp] UDLD vs Auto-neg

Roy r.engehausen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 14:26:50 EDT 2007


While originally designed for fiber, I also find it useful where
wireless bridges are used. 

Church, Charles wrote:
> I think UDLD was originally designed for fiber, where there is no
> auto-neg.   
>
> Chuck 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Durack
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:12 PM
> To: Cisco Mailing list
> Subject: [c-nsp] UDLD vs Auto-neg
>
> A question that's been bugging me for a while: what does UDLD give me
> that running auto-neg on both sides of a link doesn't? If I run auto,
> link drops if the pathway goes one-way, and won't renegotiate until
> the pathway is re-established. Isn't that all UDLD does?
>
> Perhaps there are some failure modes I'm not considering. Or maybe it
> has more to do with not running auto on infrastructure links.
>
> Comments would be appreciated!
>
> Tim:>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>   



More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list