NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
As a managed switch with 10Gbe uplink ports it is rather surprising that this switch has not been added to Insight - especially when the GS110TPV3 is supported in Insight and costs half as much as the 110EMX.
the 110EMX is a very useful switch to use at the edge of small networks where remote management would be extremely useful
13 Comments
Any chance you can cut the snark out a bit? it’s not that I don’t want to understand but that how you described it was not entirely clear.
as I now understand it form your last, rather patronising, reply and doing some follow up reading on the ieee standards, the standard mandates auto-negotiation and discourages manually setting speeds but does not actually forbid it to achieve ieee certified status. There are some vendors who do implement manual override functionality (my Mikrotik router for instance) but it’s discretionary.
Clearly Netgear has chosen not to on this device which is unfortunate in my particular scenario. Rate limiting would have been an option, but unlike my MS510 that can limit to any percentage of the port speed, the GS110 can only rate limit below 1GB (before you say how that’s also a bad approach, Netgear support suggested it to me as a possible workaround)as for the “fix your cables” comment, that is a sweeping assumption that it is always physically and/or economically possible. In my particular situation it isn’t without significant construction work.
Its not "just" a Netgear decision. The chip designer and vendor does also follow the IEEE standards.
In absence of your scenario insights, simply made me guessing, concluding it could be a wiring problem.
One needs to understand the history how the IEEE 802.3 standards developed over time. Back in about 2006, 802.3an 10GBASE-T (10 Gbit/s Ethernet over copper twisted pair cable) was ratified. This came with the requirement for better cabling systems. About 10 years later, around 2016, 802.3bz was ratified by the IEEE bodies, introducing 802.3bz, aka. 2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T (2.5 Gigabit and 5 Gigabit Ethernet over Cat-5/Cat-6 twisted pair cable). The reason why the later one was defined is in the requirement for operating faster wireless access points over existing cabling, including the ability to supply power according to 802.3af, followed by 802.3at. Later on, with the faster and more power hungry access points, 802.3bt was added. Said this: It's up to the connection end-point - that's why link speed negotiation on copper Ethernet is mandatory. And believe me: None of my many customers were happy if we had to tell them it's time to update the pysical cabling.
The problems are coming from connecting devices negotiating faster link speeds than what the physical cabling system allows. Yes, this case isn't covered by the standardisation, because it should not exist. This is nothing patriachial from my side - this is the way these tech features are standardized.
Rate limit does never change anything on the physical link rate, it just defines the amount of frames the switch does forward over a certain time. This compares more to the household water pressure regulator reducing the water pressure from the public water main to a pressure that is usable by the customer and compatible with normal household plumbing and fixtures - and to avoid the full city water supply presure. Like one does have to manually reduce the water flow to avoid bursting the garden hoses - because in our area, we get the full city water pressure on the garden outlets. Something not possible on copper networks.
