OOB core router connectivity wish list

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 15:06:57 UTC 2013


On Thu, 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?

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.



More information about the NANOG mailing list