[159414] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Jan 10 10:04:53 2013
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1301101548100.12098@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:02:03 -0500
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> =
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>=20
>>> - rs232: please no. it's 2013. I don't want or need a =
protocol which
>>> was designed for access speeds appropriate to the 1980s.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> I don't understand this argument.
>=20
> Are you connecting your CON directly to something that transports it =
out-of-the-area? Modem?
Yes, we have done this in a site with one device.
> 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).
I certainly want to use something more modern, having run Xmodem to load =
images into devices or net-booted systems with very large images in the =
past=85
I've seen all sorts of creative ways to do this (e.g.: DSL for OOB, 3G, =
private VPLS network via outside carrier). It is a challenge in the =
modern network space. Plus I have to figure that 9600 modems are going =
to be harder to find as time goes by.. at some point folks will stop =
making them.=20
- Jared=
