Reliable transfer but unreliable auto-negotiation?The maximum length of CAT6 for intranet network?No auto-negotiation for X520 with 10G direct attach cable?Is collisions between fastlink pulses possible during auto-negotiation?What's the point of auto-sensing 10/100 Mbit/s Ethernet?Why auto negotiation cannot be disabled on Fiber PortDo I need Auto-Negotiation in 1000BASE-X Ethernet if I have a point-to-point link always at 1 Gbps?Does coaxial cable transfer data both ways?Capture auto-negotiation ability flagsVerifying 802.3 auto negotiationCan bad cabling affect the overall network?How to debug L1 Auto negotiation issues?
If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?
What does the behaviour of water on the skin of an aircraft in flight tell us?
Orientable with respect to complex cobordism?
Is the capacitor drawn or wired wrongly?
Strange math syntax in old basic listing
what's the equivalent of helper in LWC?
Are there mythical creatures in the world of Game of Thrones?
Explain Ant-Man's "not it" scene from Avengers: Endgame
How to properly maintain eye contact with people that have distinctive facial features?
California: "For quality assurance, this phone call is being recorded"
Pros and cons of writing a book review?
Modern approach to radio buttons
Bringing Food from Hometown for Out-of-Town Interview?
How to write a vulnerable moment without it seeming cliche or mushy?
What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?
Recording the inputs of a command and producing a list of them later on
Why use water tanks from a retired Space Shuttle?
Can I ask a publisher for a paper that I need for reviewing
Accidentally cashed a check twice
What is the most important characteristic of New Weird as a genre?
Have powerful mythological heroes ever run away or been deeply afraid?
How can I offer a test ride while selling a bike?
What does it mean by "d-ism of Leibniz" and "dotage of Newton" in simple English?
Can you please explain this joke: "I'm going bananas is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house"?
Reliable transfer but unreliable auto-negotiation?
The maximum length of CAT6 for intranet network?No auto-negotiation for X520 with 10G direct attach cable?Is collisions between fastlink pulses possible during auto-negotiation?What's the point of auto-sensing 10/100 Mbit/s Ethernet?Why auto negotiation cannot be disabled on Fiber PortDo I need Auto-Negotiation in 1000BASE-X Ethernet if I have a point-to-point link always at 1 Gbps?Does coaxial cable transfer data both ways?Capture auto-negotiation ability flagsVerifying 802.3 auto negotiationCan bad cabling affect the overall network?How to debug L1 Auto negotiation issues?
I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.
I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?
Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?
I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.
layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation
New contributor
add a comment |
I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.
I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?
Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?
I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.
layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation
New contributor
add a comment |
I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.
I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?
Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?
I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.
layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation
New contributor
I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.
I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?
Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?
I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.
layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation
layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation
New contributor
New contributor
edited May 24 at 2:55
Ron Maupin♦
69.5k1372133
69.5k1372133
New contributor
asked May 24 at 1:36
G. HallG. Hall
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.
There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:
If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
well as properly installed and maintained.
An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
magnetic-field interference.
It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.
Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.
Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.
*This answer explains the primary test suite.
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59365%2freliable-transfer-but-unreliable-auto-negotiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.
There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:
If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
well as properly installed and maintained.
An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
magnetic-field interference.
It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.
Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.
Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.
*This answer explains the primary test suite.
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
add a comment |
You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.
There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:
If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
well as properly installed and maintained.
An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
magnetic-field interference.
It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.
Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.
Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.
*This answer explains the primary test suite.
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
add a comment |
You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.
There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:
If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
well as properly installed and maintained.
An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
magnetic-field interference.
It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.
Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.
Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.
*This answer explains the primary test suite.
You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.
There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:
If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
well as properly installed and maintained.
An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
magnetic-field interference.
It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.
Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.
Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.
*This answer explains the primary test suite.
edited May 24 at 4:09
answered May 24 at 2:56
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
69.5k1372133
69.5k1372133
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
add a comment |
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.
– G. Hall
May 24 at 18:42
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.
– Ron Maupin♦
May 24 at 18:45
add a comment |
G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59365%2freliable-transfer-but-unreliable-auto-negotiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown