frame value too large by ifconfig!!!! - Networking

This is a discussion on frame value too large by ifconfig!!!! - Networking ; my NIC doesn't work .My os is RHEL5.1/32bit/dual core intel cpu. the ifconfig output: eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:55:7B:B5:7D:F7 inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:21668 TX ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

  1. frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

    my NIC doesn't work .My os is RHEL5.1/32bit/dual core intel cpu. the
    ifconfig output:

    eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:55:7B:B5:7D:F7
    inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
    inet6 addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link
    UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:21668
    TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    RX bytes:60 (60.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
    Interrupt:169


    why the frame value(21668) so large?

    lspci -vvv


    03:00.0 Ethernet controller: ABC Networks Inc Unknown device 0003 (rev
    01)
    Subsystem: Airgo Networks Inc Unknown device 0003
    Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+
    Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B-
    Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
    SERR- Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
    Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 169
    Region 0: Memory at b8900000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K]
    Expansion ROM at 40000000 [disabled] [size=64K]
    Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
    Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2- AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2-,D3hot
    +,D3cold-)
    Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
    Capabilities: [50] Message Signalled Interrupts: 64bit+ Queue=0/0
    Enable-
    Address: 0000000000000000 Data: 0000
    Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint IRQ 0
    Device: Supported: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, ExtTag-
    Device: Latency L0s <1us, L1 <8us
    Device: AtnBtn- AtnInd- PwrInd-
    Device: Errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported-
    Device: RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+
    Device: MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
    Link: Supported Speed 2.5Gb/s, Width x1, ASPM L0s L1, Port 0
    Link: Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us
    Link: ASPM Disabled RCB 64 bytes CommClk- ExtSynch-
    Link: Speed 2.5Gb/s, Width x1

  2. Re: frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    article <9ea768c5-29cc-4312-80bd-ce7e0d5d6d38@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
    water9580@yahoo.com wrote:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >my NIC doesn't work .My os is RHEL5.1/32bit/dual core intel cpu. the
    >ifconfig output:
    >
    >eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:55:7B:B5:7D:F7


    [compton ~]$ etherwhois 00:55:7B
    Non-existent address as of Feb 24 10:03:16 UTC 2008 OUI file
    [compton ~]$

    That doesn't look good.

    >inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
    >inet6 addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link
    >UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    >RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:21668
    >TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    >collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    >RX bytes:60 (60.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
    >Interrupt:169
    >
    >why the frame value(21668) so large?


    You can't talk to the NIC - you may be using the wrong driver. The
    actual meaning of a Frame error is that the number of BITS is not
    exactly dividable by 8 (bytes) which is wrong because an Ethernet
    frame is always and exact number of bytes in length. This usually
    indicates a hardware failure, but can also be caused by using the
    wrong driver.

    >03:00.0 Ethernet controller: ABC Networks Inc Unknown device 0003 (rev
    >01)
    >Subsystem: Airgo Networks Inc Unknown device 0003


    From the pci.ids file, dated 2/24/08

    17cb Airgo Networks Inc
    0001 AGN100 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card
    0002 AGN300 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card

    [compton ~]$ etherwhois Airgo
    00-0A-F5 (hex) Airgo Networks, Inc.
    000AF5 (base 16) Airgo Networks, Inc.
    900 Arastradero Rd
    Palo Alto CA 94304
    UNITED STATES
    [compton ~]$

    It would appear that the device is unknown. You might try using the
    search engine you are posting from - a search for 'Airgo NIC Linux'
    turns up some information, and might be a starting place.

    Old guy

  3. Re: frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

    On 2月25日, 上午5时29分, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    > article <9ea768c5-29cc-4312-80bd-ce7e0d5d6...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    > water9...@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    > NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    > reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
    >
    > >my NIC doesn't work .My os is RHEL5.1/32bit/dual core intel cpu. the
    > >ifconfig output:

    >
    > >eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:55:7B:B5:7D:F7

    >
    > [compton ~]$ etherwhois 00:55:7B
    > Non-existent address as of Feb 24 10:03:16 UTC 2008 OUI file
    > [compton ~]$
    >
    > That doesn't look good.
    >
    > >inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
    > >inet6 addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link
    > >UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    > >RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:21668
    > >TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > >collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    > >RX bytes:60 (60.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
    > >Interrupt:169

    >
    > >why the frame value(21668) so large?

    >
    > You can't talk to the NIC - you may be using the wrong driver. The
    > actual meaning of a Frame error is that the number of BITS is not
    > exactly dividable by 8 (bytes) which is wrong because an Ethernet
    > frame is always and exact number of bytes in length. This usually
    > indicates a hardware failure, but can also be caused by using the
    > wrong driver.
    >
    > >03:00.0 Ethernet controller: ABC Networks Inc Unknown device 0003 (rev
    > >01)
    > >Subsystem: Airgo Networks Inc Unknown device 0003

    >
    > From the pci.ids file, dated 2/24/08
    >
    > 17cb Airgo Networks Inc
    > 0001 AGN100 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card
    > 0002 AGN300 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card
    >
    > [compton ~]$ etherwhois Airgo
    > 00-0A-F5 (hex) Airgo Networks, Inc.
    > 000AF5 (base 16) Airgo Networks, Inc.
    > 900 Arastradero Rd
    > Palo Alto CA 94304
    > UNITED STATES
    > [compton ~]$
    >
    > It would appear that the device is unknown. You might try using the
    > search engine you are posting from - a search for 'Airgo NIC Linux'
    > turns up some information, and might be a starting place.
    >
    > Old guy


    This PCIE NIC is designed by myself. i just borrow Airgo vendor/device
    ID random. it isn't any product if Airgo.

    ifconfig command shows one good packet of RX side,Tx side is not any.
    do you mean the large frame value is from Tx side ?

  4. Re: frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

    On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:13:10 -0800, water9580 rearranged some electrons to
    say:

    > On 2鏈25鏃, 涓婂崍5鏃29鍒, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin)

    wrote:
    >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
    >> in article
    >> <9ea768c5-29cc-4312-80bd-ce7e0d5d6...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
    >>
    >> water9...@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>
    >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
    >>
    >> >my NIC doesn't work .My os is RHEL5.1/32bit/dual core intel cpu. the
    >> >ifconfig output:

    >>
    >> >eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:55:7B:B5:7D:F7

    >>
    >> [compton ~]$ etherwhois 00:55:7B
    >> Non-existent address as of Feb 24 10:03:16 UTC 2008 OUI file [compton
    >> ~]$
    >>
    >> That doesn't look good.
    >>
    >> >inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6
    >> >addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING
    >> >MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
    >> >frame:21668 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    >> >collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    >> >RX bytes:60 (60.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:169

    >>
    >> >why the frame value(21668) so large?

    >>
    >> You can't talk to the NIC - you may be using the wrong driver. The
    >> actual meaning of a Frame error is that the number of BITS is not
    >> exactly dividable by 8 (bytes) which is wrong because an Ethernet frame
    >> is always and exact number of bytes in length. This usually indicates
    >> a hardware failure, but can also be caused by using the wrong driver.
    >>
    >> >03:00.0 Ethernet controller: ABC Networks Inc Unknown device 0003 (rev
    >> >01)
    >> >Subsystem: Airgo Networks Inc Unknown device 0003

    >>
    >> From the pci.ids file, dated 2/24/08
    >>
    >> 17cb Airgo Networks Inc
    >> 0001 AGN100 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card 0002 AGN300
    >> 802.11 a/b/g True MIMO Wireless Card
    >>
    >> [compton ~]$ etherwhois Airgo
    >> 00-0A-F5 (hex) Airgo Networks, Inc. 000AF5 (base
    >> 16) Airgo Networks, Inc.
    >> 900 Arastradero Rd
    >> Palo Alto CA 94304
    >> UNITED STATES
    >> [compton ~]$
    >>
    >> It would appear that the device is unknown. You might try using the
    >> search engine you are posting from - a search for 'Airgo NIC Linux'
    >> turns up some information, and might be a starting place.
    >>
    >> Old guy

    >
    > This PCIE NIC is designed by myself. i just borrow Airgo vendor/device
    > ID random. it isn't any product if Airgo.
    >


    Are you sure that your self-designed hardware is working correctly?

  5. Re: frame value too large by ifconfig!!!!

    On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    article <73bbadc8-a9bd-4351-b26e-17d220080ae2@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
    water9580@yahoo.com wrote:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:


    >> water9...@yahoo.com wrote:


    >> That doesn't look good.
    >>
    >>> inet addr:192.168.1.22 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
    >>> inet6 addr: fe80::255:7bff:feb5:7df7/64 Scope:Link
    >>> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    >>> RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:21668
    >>> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    >>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    >>> RX bytes:60 (60.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
    >>> Interrupt:169


    >> You can't talk to the NIC - you may be using the wrong driver. The
    >> actual meaning of a Frame error is that the number of BITS is not
    >> exactly dividable by 8 (bytes) which is wrong because an Ethernet
    >> frame is always and exact number of bytes in length. This usually
    >> indicates a hardware failure, but can also be caused by using the
    >> wrong driver.


    >>> 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: ABC Networks Inc Unknown device 0003 (rev
    >>> 01)
    >>> Subsystem: Airgo Networks Inc Unknown device 0003


    >This PCIE NIC is designed by myself. i just borrow Airgo vendor/device
    >ID random. it isn't any product if Airgo.


    Then there is some unknown design error. You are not getting the
    correct flags, or your data path between the NIC and the computer
    bus is not reliable. You should also change the 'Subsystem' data
    and delete reference to Airgo - "Unofficial" might be a better choice,
    as that word does not exist in the IEEE OUI data file.

    >ifconfig command shows one good packet of RX side,Tx side is not any.


    It appears from the ifconfig output above that you got one packet of
    60 bytes. Not knowing what is on your network,I can't say what that
    may have been. Apparently, there was no attempt to transmit FROM THIS
    DEVICE.

    >do you mean the large frame value is from Tx side ?


    No. I have no idea what your design looks like, but normally when a
    packet is received, and the trailing frame checksum is tested, the
    hardware creates an interrupt. The driver on receiving this interrupt
    reads a data count value (how many bytes to unload), and a flag
    register, and then reads the data. Speaking of Ethernet, the number
    of bits on the wire is ALWAYS an exact number of bytes (bits/8 * N is
    always equal to N.0000), and the hardware will set the Frame Error
    flag if this is not the case.

    BITS BYTE ERROR BITS BYTE ERROR BITS BYTE ERROR
    475 59+3 FLAG 476 59+4 FLAG 477 59+5 FLAG
    478 59+6 FLAG 479 59+7 FLAG 480 60+0 OK
    481 60+1 FLAG 482 60+2 FLAG 483 60+3 FLAG

    Here, the flag gets set for every case except when BITS = 480 because
    480/8 = 60.000 meaning there was no left-over bits. In every other case,
    there were extra bits - they do not belong here, so where did they
    come from? Did they come over the wire? Perhaps the (source) is bad
    (does a different NIC receive frames correctly from this source), but
    it's more likely to be a hardware error. On Ethernet, this may be
    caused by a wrong time constant on the hardware directly connected
    to the Ethernet making the card see an extra data transition. Now
    according to the driver, it is seeing the Frame Error flag every time,
    so either your hardware is setting the Frame Error flag always, or it
    is never cleared when you have read the data, or you are reading the
    wrong bit.

    You'll have to look at the driver source, and see what it is trying to
    read. Is your hardware setting things correctly?

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread