<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue. in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393690#M713405</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The other interface is no longer plugged into my switch that is why I didn't provide the show interface of my switch.&amp;nbsp; I plugged my laptop directly into the firewall on e0/3 and then e0/2&amp;nbsp; and e0/3 is dramatically slower then when using e0/2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However I think you may be onto something. e0/3 on the firewall is Hardcoded to FULL/100 whilst e0/2 is AUTO. on the switch all ports are AUTO.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;excusse my lack of understanding in this area, but why would this cause this problem?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will need to go into the datacentre and repatch the port, I will do this next week, switch them both to auto and try again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will report back.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:29:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-06-05T07:29:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393685#M713400</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Guys I have an ASA 5510 running 8.0 code.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was experiencing slower throughput then normal and decided to do some testing on the firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I had a redundant interface for the inside of the firewall with ports e0/2 and e0/3. both configures to 100/FULL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I configured the management interface and e0/1 ( e0/0 is being used on the outside interface) with seperate ip subnets and configured the required NAT'ing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I then ran some speedtests via speedtest.net. I found that using e0/1(gig) or management(100mb) I was achieving speeds consistently(over many tests) at least 10 times faster then on the redundant 1 interface ( with e0/3 active).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I then removed the redundant interface and tested e0/2 and e0/3 seperately and discovered e0/2 gave consistent high speeds just like all of the other interfaces but e0/3 was still consistently showing very poor speeds.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The interface was up, didn't seem to be under any load and full duplex 100 ( the same as 0/2 and management interface).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I think there is an issue with e0/3 but I'm not sure how to test. What should I look for, what sort of tests are at my desposal?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;many thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:34:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393685#M713400</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T17:34:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393686#M713401</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please send the output of &lt;STRONG&gt;show interface&lt;/STRONG&gt; both before running the speed test as well as after.&amp;nbsp; Is the interface receiving any errors?&amp;nbsp; Also, what peer device are the interfaces plugged into?&amp;nbsp; If you swap e2 and e3 connections on the peer device, does that make a difference?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:39:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393686#M713401</guid>
      <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-04-29T13:39:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393687#M713402</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry its taken so long to get back with this information.Something came up and I wasn't able to get to the devices over the last month.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have tried plugging E0/3 into different ports of the switch but I get the same result. I don't think its an issue with the switch.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here are the before and after interface stats. I can't see much obvious.There are some errors, but not sure if its enough to be concerned?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BEFORE - Note, it is down as I hadn't plugged my laptop in yet. There are still some previous stats from the last tests.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Interface Ethernet0/3 "faulty", is down, line protocol is down&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Hardware is i82546GB rev03, BW 100 Mbps, DLY 100 usec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Full-Duplex, 100 Mbps&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; MAC address 0026.0b31.1249, MTU 1500&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; IP address 172.16.1.1, subnet mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 9549 packets input, 3377943 bytes, 0 no buffer&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Received 140 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 337 input errors, 337 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 76 L2 decode drops&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 14233 packets output, 15641611 bytes, 0 underruns&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 3 interface resets&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; input queue (curr/max packets): hardware (0/9) software (0/0)&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; output queue (curr/max packets): hardware (0/0) software (0/0)&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Traffic Statistics for "faulty":&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 packets input, 0 bytes&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 packets output, 0 bytes&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 packets dropped&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute input rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute output rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute drop rate, 0 pkts/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute input rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute output rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute drop rate, 0 pkts/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Control Point Interface States:&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface number is 5&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface config status is active&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface state is not active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;asa01(config)#&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;AFTER&lt;BR /&gt;-----&lt;BR /&gt;show interface e0/3 detail&lt;BR /&gt;Interface Ethernet0/3 "faulty", is up, line protocol is up&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Hardware is i82546GB rev03, BW 100 Mbps, DLY 100 usec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Full-Duplex(Full-duplex), 100 Mbps(100 Mbps)&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; MAC address 0026.0b31.1249, MTU 1500&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; IP address 172.16.1.1, subnet mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 18335 packets input, 6920327 bytes, 0 no buffer&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Received 233 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 720 input errors, 720 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 76 L2 decode drops&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 28761 packets output, 33414940 bytes, 0 underruns&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 3 interface resets&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 babbles, 0 late collisions, 0 deferred&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; input queue (curr/max packets): hardware (0/20) software (0/0)&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; output queue (curr/max packets): hardware (0/5) software (0/0)&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Traffic Statistics for "faulty":&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 8778 packets input, 3345614 bytes&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 14528 packets output, 17505640 bytes&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 133 packets dropped&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute input rate 109 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 8359 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute output rate 208 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 289404 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 1 minute drop rate, 0 pkts/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute input rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute output rate 0 pkts/sec,&amp;nbsp; 0 bytes/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 5 minute drop rate, 0 pkts/sec&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; Control Point Interface States:&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface number is 5&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface config status is active&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Interface state is active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:36:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393687#M713402</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-04T09:36:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393688#M713403</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I see CRC errors on the e0/3. That could relate to the issue.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would suggest checking speed/duplex negotiation with the connected device.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I hope it helps a little.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PK&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:15:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393688#M713403</guid>
      <dc:creator>Panos Kampanakis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-04T17:15:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393689#M713404</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Marcos,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was looking for the show interface output from both interfaces.&amp;nbsp; But, as Panos says, you are getting a number of CRC errors, and since you hard-coded the interface speed/duplex on the ASA, there is the possibility that you are getting a duplex mis-match.&amp;nbsp; I would suggest removing the hard-coding of the speed/duplex on both sides, and verify they auto negotiate to 100/full and then do the test again (after issuing clear interface to clear the packet/error counters).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Sincerely,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:39:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393689#M713404</guid>
      <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-04T21:39:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393690#M713405</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The other interface is no longer plugged into my switch that is why I didn't provide the show interface of my switch.&amp;nbsp; I plugged my laptop directly into the firewall on e0/3 and then e0/2&amp;nbsp; and e0/3 is dramatically slower then when using e0/2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However I think you may be onto something. e0/3 on the firewall is Hardcoded to FULL/100 whilst e0/2 is AUTO. on the switch all ports are AUTO.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;excusse my lack of understanding in this area, but why would this cause this problem?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will need to go into the datacentre and repatch the port, I will do this next week, switch them both to auto and try again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will report back.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:29:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393690#M713405</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-05T07:29:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393691#M713406</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Marcos,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The reason this will cause a problem is if the ASA is hardcoded for 100/full-duplex, and then is connected to a device (laptop/switch) which is configured for Auto then the switch side will try to autonegotiate the settings.&amp;nbsp; Since the ASA is hard-coded, it will not participate in the negotiation process.&amp;nbsp; The switch side will then see that negotiation has failed, and will be able to sense the speed, so it will set itself to 100 Mbps.&amp;nbsp; However, for duplex it cannot be sensed, and therefore the side configured for Auto will default to half-duplex.&amp;nbsp; Thereby causing a duplex mis-match.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is why the general recommendation is to leave all ports at 'auto'.&amp;nbsp; (In the old days - 1990s; the auto-negotiation process had some bugs between different vendor's equipment, and thus the general recommendation back then was to hard-code everything.&amp;nbsp; However, those issues have long been since addressed, and configuring the devices for autonegotiation is a much better option, as it avoids the more common case of misconfigurations - where one side is hard-coded, but the other is not).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I hope it helps explain it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sincerely,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:09:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393691#M713406</guid>
      <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-05T15:09:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393692#M713407</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks David,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That explanation was very clear and concise.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will be heading into my data center in a couple of days and will test then and let you know if that was the issue or not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:55:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393692#M713407</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-06T22:55:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393693#M713408</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi David,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have set both sides of the connection to Auto and the link is up as Full/100.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't seem to be seeing an increase in CRC errors anymore and things seem faster. So it looks like the issue could be resolved.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However what is odd to me is before I set the firewall to auto. both side were still Full/100.&amp;nbsp; I understand why a duplex mismatch would have casued issues but if they were both full and 100 I'm not sure why.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cheers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:23:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393693#M713408</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-15T00:23:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393694#M713409</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Marcos,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I agree, that does sound odd, if both sides were hard-coded with the same speed/duplex settings.&amp;nbsp; Especially since the ASA was receiving CRC errors (which is indicatitive of a duplex mis-match when it is at full-duplex).&amp;nbsp; We can try to chase it down further if you wish, but it will probably require a maintenance window where we would have access to both devices, and have you switch ports as we collect additional data.&amp;nbsp; If you want to persue that route, I would suggest opening a TAC case, so that we can be sure to have someone ready during your maintenance window.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sincerely,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;David.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:02:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393694#M713409</guid>
      <dc:creator>David White</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-15T03:02:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Troubleshooting bizarre interface issue.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393695#M713410</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi David,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry I don't think I made myself clear. The switch was set to Auto and the FW was hardcoded. But the switch had negotiated to (Auto) 100/Full and the firewall was (Hardcoded) 100/Full.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I figured because they were both "Full" there shouldn't be any issues. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've been monitoring the interface and it doesn't seem to be causing any more CRC errors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:55:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/troubleshooting-bizarre-interface-issue/m-p/1393695#M713410</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcosgeorgopoulos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-06-15T09:55:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

