Hi, thank you for all your responses, I have been doing some investigation because as many people have pointed out to me, gigabit NEEDs to autonegotiate ! So I have been wondering why on earth Cisco would introduce an option to FIX to 1000/Full when the gigabit standard doesnt support being fixed. So here are my findings I have two identical Sun boxes with e1000g interfaces configured to auto-negotiate but only advertise 1000/FULL ... See e1000g.conf below cat /kernel/drv/e1000g.conf | grep -v \# NumTxDescriptors = 256; NumRxDescriptors = 256; FlowControl = 3; MaxNumReceivePackets = 32; MaxFrags = 8; TxInterruptDelay = 300; MaxFreeListBuf=256; MWIEnable = 1; DmaFairness = 1; MasterLatencyTimer = 0; ForceSpeedDuplex=7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7; AutoNegAdvertised=32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32,32; MaxFrameSize=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0; ProfileJumboTraffic=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0; TbiCompatibilityEnable=1; SetMasterSlave=0; tx_hcksum_enabled=0,0,0,0; so these two Sun boxes are connected to the same Cisco Catalyst switch with one of them configured as speed auto duplex auto which subsequently appears like this on the switch Gi1/12 server2 connected 3 a-full a-1000 and the other Sun box as speed 1000 duplex full which appears like this on the switch Gi1/36 server1 connected 3 full 1000 As I have mentioned in my original post, both seem to work just fine, and when i run "dladm show-dev" on either box, i get this # dladm show-dev e1000g0 link: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full .. .. which is fine ON the first box which is configured to auto negotiate on the switch i get the following output from kstat (checking the link partner aka the switch port) # kstat -m e1000g -p | fgrep lp_ e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_1000fdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_1000hdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_100fdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_100hdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_10fdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_10hdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_asmpause 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_autoneg 1 However, on the box that is configured as "fixed" 1000/FULL on the switchI get e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_1000fdx 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_1000hdx 0 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_100fdx 0 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_100hdx 0 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_10fdx 0 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_10hdx 0 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_asmpause 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_autoneg 1 e1000g:0:mac:lp_cap_pause 0 As you can see it seems as though the option on the switch to fix at 1000/FUll actually does what the e1000g configuration is doing .. i.e it has switched autoneg on, but is only advertising 1000/FULL capability If you look at the output from the box that has autoneg set on the switchport, you can see that all autoneg capabilities are set to 1, So in summary, I think, although misleading you into thinking you are fixing 1000/Full (when its in fact still autonegging) It is the better option to avoid mismatch issues as it only advertises 1000/FULL and not the others ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bobby Buckle <bobby.buckle@googlemail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM Subject: gigabit - fix spd/dpx on the switch ? or autoneg ? To: sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org Hi there We have a bit of a debate going here over what the prefered method is for setting 1000/Full on e1000g or nge interfaces is. As you aware the Solaris configration files for nge and e1000g dont allow you to "fix" 1000/Full but instead allow you to set auto-negotiate to ON but only advertise the capability to set 1000/Full. All of our Solaris boxes have been configured using this method .... BUT, on the Cisco switch side we have recently discovered that half the sysadmins have been *FIXING* the switchport to 1000/FULL and the other half have been setting the switchport to *autonegotiate* ( mirroring the server config ) Now the thing is, both seem to work absolutely fine, On the switch, the fixed ports come up as *Gi1/36 server1 connected 3 full 1000 * and the ones where the switch is configured as auto-neg..like this * Gi1/12 server2 connected 3 a-full a-1000 * "*dladm show-dev*" on both Solaris boxes confirms that 1000/Full is set as well We are finally in the process of putting an absolute procedure together with the preffered method of doing this , so what is the preffered method? My understanding is that if you autoneg on one side it is best practice to autoneg on the other ? is this correct ....? but as i say, both methods seem to achieve the desired result Any input would be greatly appreciated Bobby _______________________________________________ sunmanagers mailing list sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagersReceived on Wed Apr 22 11:27:04 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:44:14 EST