I have had a number of these routers show inconsistent negotiation:
Either negotiate to 100FULL, or not negotiate at all "notconnect" - thus affecting WAN access
I have noticed something unusual - the interfaces are seen as Gigabit even though they are just fastethernet
Installed image archive
Cisco C887VA-K9 (revision 1.0) with 488524K/35763K bytes of memory.
Processor board ID FCZ2109117A
1 DSL controller
1 Ethernet interface
4 FastEthernet interfaces
1 ATM interface
1 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Module
DRAM configuration is 32 bits wide
255K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
250880K bytes of ATA System CompactFlash (Read/Write)
FastEthernet1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Gigabit Ethernet, address is 0896.adf5.cfdb (bia 0896.adf5.cfdb)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit/sec, DLY 100 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
even when connected to a gigabit switch they will still only negotiate to 100FULL.
As a workaround, I can force them to 100F but that doesn't help if I dont have access to the device at the other end (typically an ISPs NTE) and could end up with the 3rd party device negotiating to 100-half which is going to cause issues.
f/w is c800-universalk9-mz.SPA.156-2.T1.bin
Most ISPs hard set there circuits and you need to ask them what they have it at before connecting up the router , I have circuits all over emea and its the same thing with any wan connecting router not just 800 series , 99% of mine are all hard set whether its 100 /1000 etc varying from different ISPs thats normal enough auto negotiation wont work with some low end ISPs ntes that's why its shows not connected unless hard set
if the router is a FE port it will only support that speed , its most likely a GE board restricted to 100 at port level
Thanks for the response. I probably should have included more detail - I have 100s of these devices out and about with a variety of ISPs - mostly Cisco NTEs with auto neg. They have always been fine upuntil the last batch of new ones, so I am working on the basis that there;s bug in the firmware?
The problems i've seen recently have been negotiating to either Cisco 1800 routers (both direct and with HWIC) or 2960 swithces
The workaround of setting 100F is fine, the difficulty being that I cant be 100% sure that the far end has been forced to 100F even if iask for it (i usually check with CDP assuming the 3rd party has enabled it)
Negotiation relates to the duplex mode not speed, as such 10/100mb interface duplex mismatch will default to 10/HD (half dulpex)
1000mb interface duplex mismatch will default to 100/full
So if you receiving any of the above then I would suggest try manually hard-coding the interfaces or obtain clarification for other side of the link from whoever admin it.
on a side note- Is the cabling sufficient?
it doesnt negotiate incorrectly - it doesnt negotiate at all - sho int status of "notconnect"
Yes, cabling etc all checked, I know the workaround is to force it to FULL but I am interested in a solution rather than a workaround :-)
ah ok if they support it and the ISP allows it should work and was before , what was the IOS version they were working on
looking on the cisco website don't see any specific recommended versions for that platform but a main deployment version my be worth a try there's one form July this year , early deployments can be less tested ,but before swapping ios versions did you ever get access to any of the NTEs to be sure there setup right on their side or even ask them for a print out of what they have , I have had to request it a few times off ISPs just to be sure when they wont grant access usually they will give a screenshot or something to prove their side out
If its not working with 1800 cisco to cisco direct that nay be software problem alright they should negotiate
Yes, checked with ISPs on screensharing session- they were auto-neg. Not sure on their IOS but I can replicate it here to a 3560 switch on an old 12.2, so i figure that iit's more likely the new 15.6
I'll try the July version to see what I can get