[c-nsp] full duplex mismatch speed - dynamips

[Adam Armstrong]

On 19/08/2010 21:02, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 12:26, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:52:48AM -0600, John Neiberger wrote:
>>> Adam, you are my new best friend. I've been saying this for the past
>>> few years and people still think I'm crazy. I flat out refuse to
>>> manually configure speed and duplex for someone unless it is
>>> demonstrated (or I can verify) that a duplex mismatch is actually
>>> happening or there is some other extenuating circumstance that
>>> requires it.
>>
>> JFTR, count me in that camp as well (and that has been discussed here
>> on c-nsp just a few months ago as well).
>>
>> The PA-FE-TX is really the only thing left in our network that needs
>> force-duplex.
>>
>
>
> I, believe it or not, still have a 3640 floating around with a NM-4E set
> to 10/full on all interfaces. It hasn't died yet and does its intended
> job perfectly.
>
> I'd tried to turn up a fast ethernet with Verizon a while back and their
> policy was to set the ports on the overture to 100/full, no auto.
>
> But these are both fringe cases these days. Other than that it's autoneg
> all the way. It's not the 90's anymore. There's absolutely no reason to
> not use it.

I think the nailing issue is still more of a problem in "telcos" as 
opposed to "isps". Telcos being in general larger, slower and more fond 
of process and procedure which once instituted are impossible to remove :)

I've worked for a telco which insisted on forcing ports both internally 
and customer facing. They went so far as to force 100/full on ports 
facing phones and printers.

It took a while to remove the practice. I found challenging people to 
tell me when the last time they saw an issue caused by an 
autonegotiating port where the other side wasn't forced helped quite a 
lot, as no one could think of any, it was just something they'd always 
done, for fear of the autoneg boogeyman!

adam.