[159410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Jan 10 09:53:04 2013
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:51:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabcyTQns31FO1Pys0Mc3-E_=Ng46Saj5njL1JwYmUWRQg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> - rs232: please no. it's 2013. I don't want or need a protocol which
>> was designed for access speeds appropriate to the 1980s.
>
> I don't think you can get ethernet and transport out-of-the-area in
> some places at a reasonable cost, so having serial-console I think is
> still a requirement.
I don't understand this argument.
Are you connecting your CON directly to something that transports it
out-of-the-area? Modem?
If you have a consolerouter there with T1 interface as link to outside
world, what's wrong with having ethernet port from that T1 router to
the ethernet OOB port on the router needing OOB access, instead of having
RS232 port on them. It's cheaper and easier to cable ethernet compared to
RS232. RS232 has much shorter cable length compared to ethernet (9600
reaches 20 meters or so).
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
