Reason for 100M-F being reported in Link (speed)?

[ralliart12]

Hi, may I know what are the potential reasons that will cause the link speed to be reported (negotiated) at "100M-F" at this part of the UI:

assuming the equipment involved were capable of (& reported to be capable of) 1G previously?

It occurred to me today, I was quite surprised. Using a Netonix WS-12-250-AC (firmware 1.4.2) to power up an Ubiquiti UAP-AC-Pro. Didn't change any setting on either equipment, was just browsing through the switch's admin page when the yellow LAN port image caught my attention.

Had also noticed a few out-of-the-norm entries in the switch's log:

Code: Select all

Jan 1 08:00:05 netonix: 1.4.2 on WS-12-250-AC
Jan 1 08:00:10 system: Setting MAC address from flash configuration: EC:13:B3:61:06:4A
Jan 1 08:00:11 system: starting ntpclient
Jan 1 08:00:12 admin: adding lan (eth0) to firewall zone lan
Jan 1 08:00:23 main: packet_rx_filter_change NOT IMPLEMENTED
Jan 1 08:00:23 dropbear[730]: Running in background
Jan 1 08:00:26 switch[761]: Detected cold boot
Jan 1 08:00:27 switch[761]: PoE enabled on port 2, PoE Smart is starting cable check
Jan 1 08:00:28 system: starting ntpclient
Jan 1 08:00:33 switch[761]: Port 2 cable check results: Abnormal termination, Abnormal termination, Open, Open
Jan 1 08:00:33 switch[761]: Port 2 passed PoE Smart cable check, turning on power
Jan 1 08:00:36 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Jan 1 08:00:39 system: starting ntpclient
Jan 1 08:00:50 system: starting ntpclient
Jan 1 08:00:54 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Jan 1 08:00:56 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Jan 1 08:01:01 system: starting ntpclient
<the ntpclient line repeats for a while but that is normal behaviour for my case>
Aug 13 08:01:44 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 08:01:46 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:07 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:09 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:12 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:14 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:17 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:19 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:21 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:23 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:25 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:27 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:28 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 09:39:29 Port: link state changed to 'up' (100M-F) on port 2
Aug 13 16:26:06 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 16:26:08 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
(the following was initiated by me on the access point's side, i.e. a restart without power-cycling)
Aug 13 16:26:08 switch[3867]: unexpected link change on port 2 100M-F
Aug 13 16:26:26 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 13 16:26:28 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2


I will also like to know the meaning of "unexpected link change", i.e. are there "expected" link change scenarios?

[Eric Stern]

Hi, may I know what are the potential reasons that will cause the link speed to be reported (negotiated) at "100M-F" at this part of the UI:

assuming the equipment involved were capable of (& reported to be capable of) 1G previously?

Bad cable usually.

I will also like to know the meaning of "unexpected link change", i.e. are there "expected" link change scenarios?

If you change the link speed in the configuration that is an expected link change.

If the link has been operating for more than a few minutes and then suddenly changes when no configuration change has been made that is an unexpected link change.

[ralliart12]

Having another occurrence of link speed change again:

Code: Select all

Jan 1 08:09:45 system: starting ntpclient
Aug 15 19:42:01 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:05 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:06 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:08 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:10 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:12 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:16 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:21 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:22 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:24 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:42 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:44 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:46 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:48 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:49 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:51 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:53 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:55 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:57 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:42:59 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:43:01 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:43:03 Port: link state changed to 'up' (100M-F) on port 2
Aug 15 19:56:54 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 19:56:56 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 19:56:57 switch[[b]2200[/b]
]: unexpected link change on port 2 100M-F
Aug 15 20:01:57 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:01:59 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:01 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:03 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:05 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:07 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:08 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:10 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:31 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:33 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:35 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:02:37 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:11 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:14 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:15 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:17 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:18 Port: link state changed to 'down' on port 2
Aug 15 20:06:20 Port: link state changed to 'up' (1G) on port 2


However, this time round the figure is "2200" instead of "3867" (see my original post)...actually, even if the link doesn't change to 100M-F, having so many "link state changed to 'up' (1G)"/"link state changed to 'down' (1G)" occurring at such rapid frequency is a very bad sign, isn't it? Bad cable?

[lligetfa]

Bad cable?

Could be bad cable, bad radio, or bad port. You need to figure out which, the order of which depends on the effort. Move cable to another port on the switch. If problem moves right away then port on switch is probably OK. Might be problem port on radio or rebooting radio. If swapping radio doesn't help then swap the cable.

[ralliart12]

Could be...bad radio...Might be problem port on radio or rebooting radio. If swapping radio doesn't help then swap the cable.

Hi, may I know by "radio", are you referring to the access point?
It's the easiest for me to replace the cables (home environment, most equipment physically accessible any time); so I'll try this first.
On the other hand, I'm confused by this:

...Move (paraphrased: unchanged) cable to another port on the switch. If problem moves right away then port on switch is probably OK...

Doesn't this instead imply the original port that was used on the switch is not okay?
Will like to pose 2 additional questions:
Any idea where I can figure out what the various numeric error code in the switch's log mean, &
Is there any where in the switch's admin page that I can access all the historical log, rather than log entries that only commence when the switch is powered on? Do I need to de-activate some setting that trims the log?

[lligetfa]

Yes, Access Point is a radio.

If when moving a cable from one port to another port, the problem moves (follows) the cable, then the port is most likely good. If the problem doesn't follow the move, then suspect the port or a flakey crimp.

[ralliart12]

Was browsing around the forums when I came across this: link, link2, link3
If the cable swap (what I'm trying now) yields no significant result, I'm simply gonna try turning UBNT discovery off.

[ralliart12]

Just to update: been a few days & I am unable to reproduce the situation even with the original (LAN) cable. So all seems fine now. I didn't disable ubnt discovery either.

[sirhc]

Well if you had a link speed change and did nothing it will come back.

Probably a bad cable, or end, or radio.

UBNT Discovery would not affect the port speed change but that has been fixed in v1.4.3rc6 as far as we know or have been told by people.

People always find time to let us know when something is broken but rarely report back if everything is ok.

Well I am sitting here on the balcony having a cup of coffee as this is my day to start packing and return home, vacation is almost over.

[lligetfa]

If I were a betting man my money would be on a marginal crimp. Probably the luck of the draw on unplugging and plugging them back in. I've had where they failed the wiggle test and needed toothpicks stuck in alongside them until they could be remade.