netdev - Re: Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120913.163134.361379133013906511.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:31:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	erwanaliasr1@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior

From: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:21:15 +0200

> That lever for me two points :
> - why is this timeout setup for so long ? Even with a spantree
> - configuration, not having a carrier for 2mn is *waow* ... Does a 30sec
> - could not be enough ? What is the need of waiting so long time ?

I've seen PHY/switch/hub combinations that take longer than 30 seconds
to fully negotiate the link.

There is really no upper limit to the link speed/duplex/etc.
negoatiation process.

Even if the actual negoatiation protocol had an upper limit on
negoatiation time, hardware implementations do things like try
sampling the quality of the cable signal and may choose to
down-rev the advertised features and restart the negoatiation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html