[159416] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OOB core router connectivity wish list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Jan 10 10:11:02 2013
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1301101548100.12098@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:06:57 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 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?
sure
> If you have a consolerouter there with T1 interface as link to outside
i may not have a T1, because a T1 is ~2k/month or more in some places.
I may have dialup to a 'console server' that services the items in the
pop/location.
I do hope to improve that solution with some networked thing, so I do
want ethernet... I'm just saying that today it's not cost effective
everywhere. You seem to agree with this, in previous posts at least.
> 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).
odd, I could swear I've used 9600 baud over a couple hundred feet,
though that's less of an issues, really.
