[ILUG] one for the network gurus

[John P. Looney]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:33:55AM +0000, Paul Jakma mentioned:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, John P. Looney wrote:
> >  Nah. This is happening between two boxes connected via crossover, both
> > 100Mbit full duplex, one with an e100 card, the other a tulip.
> ah.. you /sure/ both cards are using 100MBit FD.

 Jaysus;

Linux Tulip driver version 0.9.15-pre6 (July 2, 2001)
PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 00:0b.0
tulip0:  MII transceiver #1 config 1000 status 782d advertising 01e1.
eth0: Lite-On 82c168 PNIC rev 33 at 0xd400, 00:A0:CC:39:B0:6E, IRQ 10.
eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII#1 link partner capability of 45e1.

 and

eth2: Intel(R) PRO/100+ Management Adapter
Using specified TxDescriptor count of 256.
Using specified RxDescriptor count of 256.
Using specified ucode value of 1.
Node addr is: 0:3:2d:0:2d:6
e100_init: end
  Mem:0xd6400000  IRQ:12  Speed:100 Mbps  Dx:Full
  Hardware receive checksums enabled
dev = 0xc7075c00 <7>  priv = 0xc7d73c00
  irq = 0xc <7>  next = 0x00000000 <7>  flags = 0x1002
  bdp = 0xc7d73c00
  irq_level = 0xc
e100_alloc_space: begin
PCI: Found IRQ 12 for device 00:08.0
PCI: Sharing IRQ 12 with 00:0c.0
RevID = 0x8
SUBSYSTEM_ID = 0x100c
SUBSYSTEM_VENDOR_ID = 0x8086
DeviceNum = 0x0
mem_start = 0xd6402000
io_start = 0xc400
pci_cmd = 0x7
ven_id = 0x8086

> esp. with crossover it's likely autonegotiation didnt - not something
> vendors spend lots of time on in the proving labs. (and a lot of
> tulips have problems with autonegotiation).

 Not this one!

> >  Google isn't that helpful on this one. Mostly, it's people printing
> > ifconfig outputs.
> try "cause of ifconfig overruns" :)

 Hmm. Of the first ninety links, one was about a big overrun number. And
that was an out of data ifconfig in the 2.2 days. Bah.

Kate

-- 
_______________________________________
John Looney             Chief Scientist
a n t e f a c t o     t: +353 1 8586004
www.antefacto.com     f: +353 1 8586014