OOB core router connectivity wish list

Jared Mauch jared at puck.nether.net
Thu Jan 10 15:02:03 UTC 2013

On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at 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?

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…

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. 

- Jared

More information about the NANOG mailing list