[NTLUG:Discuss] ntlug.org back from the dead again

[Leroy Tennison]

Chris Cox wrote:

>Pat Regan wrote:
>  
>
>>Johnie Stafford wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>If you're talking 100Mb/s, things are totally different. I've never
>>>known Auto+Auto to work in a Cisco FastEthernet (100Mb/s)
>>>environment. You will almost always get a duplex mismatch. Auto+Hard
>>>usuall works, although they usually just go with Hard+Hard in our shop
>>>to make sure everything is running at 100/Full.
>>>      
>>>
>>Is this still an issue with current Cisco hardware?  If it is, why is
>>everyone still buying Cisco switches?  And why is it that my 5 year old,
>>cheap as heck "Switch" brand 10/100 switch can manage to do it just fine?
>>
>>It has been a few lifetimes since I have actually been a network guy,
>>and at the time I was working for a 3com shop.  We never had any auto
>>negotiation problems that I can remember.  Everywhere I have worked
>>since has been a Cisco shop, and we always ended up having negotiation
>>issues.
>>
>>Is there a technical reason why they don't make a switch that can auto
>>negotiate properly?
>>    
>>
>
>Auto negotiation is only DEFINED when both sides are auto negotiating.
>It's not a Cisco problem.
>
>The times where I've seen Cisco not work auto-auto is with older Sun
>boxes.  You can peruse the wayback machine for details.  Both claimed
>that each other had misinterpreted the spec..... I didn't care, I felt
>that it was in their best interests to just make it work.. instead of
>pointing the finger at each other.  Not sure who moved on it... but I
>haven't had the problem in about 4-5 years now.
>
>_______________________________________________
>https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>  
>
Later 3Com drivers seem to have gotten their act together as well.  May 
be like plug-and-pray, it took a while but things definitely seem better 
in that arena now.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that "intelligent" 
power solutions are ever going to get there.