[159518] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Sun Jan 13 03:12:17 2013
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:12:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oe5nHf4x7g5VmZY_iRrtNKUgL1pnvn+9jUVFupeP7a5g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going awry,
> and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had to
> implement "no negotiation-auto" in their configs because you couldn't
> count on everyone's implementations working together just absolutely
> perfectly the first time on bootup. Yes, it sure is a good thing
> ethernet never has issues like that which would cripple your ability to
> get a box up and running at 2am.
Has this happened to you with equipment designed and manufactured the past
5 years?
For me this was a problem with equipment released around 2000, since
2005-2007 or so I haven't seen a single problem that I can recall.
I blame part of this problem on Cisco who was especially bad at handling
autoneg. I remember in 1998 when we couldn't even get link up between a
100 meg LE interface on a Sun and a (I believe) 3500XL. We had to use a
hub in between to get link at all. Even worse, different port blocks on
the 3500XL behaved differently.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
