Re: replacing a NIC

• Previous message: martin f krafft: "Re: setting the umask globally"
• In reply to: Marc Jackson: "replacing a NIC"
• Next in thread: Dave Ewart: "Re: replacing a NIC"
• Reply: Dave Ewart: "Re: replacing a NIC"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:21:09 -0600
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:33:10PM -0700, Marc Jackson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We had a 3com NIC go bad and replaced it with and Intel card.
>
> I'm noticing odd behavior. The kernel/NIC runs a self-test and
> says that it's up in 100 Full Duplex mode. [ This is good. ]
> I try to ping some sites to verify and I get 100% packet loss.
> I did ping to the broadcast address and machines on the
> LAN responded. [ This is good. ] Then I could ping www.cisco.com.
> [ This is very good. ] A day later, I can't get out to any machines
> on the LAN or on the internet. As a test, I went back and did a ping
> to the broadcast address. No other machines responded this time.
>
> I have the feeling that some network guy, put a block on the wall jack ...

If there is some other equipment on the LAN that is running 10, then
the whole segment of the LAN must run 10. If the LAN is dynamically
changed with equipment swapped out and in without powering down
the hubs, then the equipment that originally required 10 may no longer
be connected. A trick that I use on my junky old LAN is to power down
my hubs momentarily and let them reconfigure on power-up.

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

• Previous message: martin f krafft: "Re: setting the umask globally"
• In reply to: Marc Jackson: "replacing a NIC"
• Next in thread: Dave Ewart: "Re: replacing a NIC"
• Reply: Dave Ewart: "Re: replacing a NIC"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]