[j-nsp] J6350's interface down/up

[Evan Williams]

whilst I enjoy the debate of this issue, to disambiguiate (ooh!), IMHO 
empirically I have found it is always easier to hard code the settings when 
connecting different vendors equipment. The point I make with clause 37 is 
that some vendors chose to interpret auto-negotiation in their own 
particular way. As they also chose to support IETF recommendations to suit 
their needs. After all this is all about business needs and if one vendor 
supports a protocol in one way it does not always hold that another vendor 
will support in exactly the same way (proven empirically).


It suits some vendors to interpret recommendations to preserve their market 
dominance, enough said.

yours in abject skepticism


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Will Hargrave" <will at harg.net>
To: "Brandon Bennett" <bennetb at gmail.com>
Cc: <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J6350's interface down/up


> Brandon Bennett wrote:
>> When using 10 or 100.  There is no such thing at 1000-half (at least
>> defined in the standard).
>
> Actually, on a point of order, this isn't actually correct. 1000mbit
> half duplex was defined in IEEE 803.3z and hence it's in 802.3-2005.
>
> Whether you are likely to see an implementation in the wild which
> supports it is another thing. :-)
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp