<div dir="ltr">I agree, Wireshark in and of itself is passive. A good test would be to plug the laptop in and configure everything like you would be using wireshark but don't actually start Wireshark.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Bruce Ediger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bediger@stratigery.com" target="_blank">bediger@stratigery.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, David L. Anselmi wrote:<br>
<br>
> Or, as Charles suggested, adding Wireshark to the network caused the switch<br>
> configuration to change, unscrewing whatever was screwed up in it.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm unusually unlucky when it comes to cabling, so maybe that's coloring<br>
my views, but perhaps the act of physically plugging a laptop into the<br>
switch re-seated a jumper, or moved a broken wire in a cable back into<br>
contact or something.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
clue mailing list: <a href="mailto:clue@cluedenver.org">clue@cluedenver.org</a><br>
For information, account preferences, or to unsubscribe see:<br>
<a href="http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>