North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Weird networking issue.
Heh. Tell that to my Catalyst 3548's and the E250's at the other end. ;) Lab testing showed serious throughput issues though (expected) in duplex-mismatched links, and large increases in runt and mutli-collision counters. CRC errors and FCS errors also rose in proportion to relative link saturation in a more simplistic 6500 <->7509<-> 3548 test environment. > Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors. > > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: David G. Andersen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:08 PM > To: Drew Weaver > Cc: '[email protected]' > Subject: Re: Weird networking issue. > > > > Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex > and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of > the connection. > > I'd wager you've got half duplex set on one side, and full on the other... > > -Dave > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:19:10PM -0500, Drew Weaver mooed: > > > > Hi, this is kind of a newbie question but this doesn't make a whole lot of > > sense :P > > > > I have an etherstack hub connected to a FastEthernet port on a cisco 3660 > > router, these are the stats when I do a show int fast0/0: > > > > 5776 input errors, 5776 CRC, 2717 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored > > > > Whats weird is I just cleared the counters 12 minutes ago, and already > there > > are almost 6000 CRC errors. This connected via a standard Cat5 ethernet > > cable, I have tried replacing the cable to noavail. > > > > Is this a fairly normal situation, If so that's great, but it seemed > rather > > ridiculous to me, and if it is not a normal situation, what would cause > > this? > > > > Any ideas are appreciated. > > Thanks, > > -Drew Weaver > > -- > work: [email protected] me: [email protected] > MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ > I do not accept unsolicited commercial email. Do not spam me. >