Ethernet Service at 150 S. Market Street, SJ

Warren Bailey wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Tue Jan 29 21:10:58 UTC 2013


Both.

If you're looking for some kind of actual out of band (for disaster recovery scenarios), Satellite is an excellent option. If you just need 100-200kbps for basic console access, you could absolutely accomplish this with satellite. The only real difference between Satellite and Cellular is, if there is any real power at the facility Satellite will be online — I don't think we can say the same for cellular BTS's. Every Cellular installation I have done (over 300) has had a single feed to primary power. Power goes out across several blocks and suddenly the BTS's that are outside of that area are saturated with additional handset registrations. If it were me, I would not rely on 3G/4G for anything that had actual ramifications behind it. If you've got a killer SLA with your customers, the funds to deploy a VSAT solution are minimal at best. 1mbps/1mbps with no SLA across satellite is in the hundreds of dollars per month, and you get a VLAN piped straight back into your gear at your offices.

From: PC <paul4004 at gmail.com<mailto:paul4004 at gmail.com>>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:58:12 -0700
To: User <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com<mailto:wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com>>
Cc: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com<mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>>, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com<mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com>>, "nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>" <nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Ethernet Service at 150 S. Market Street, SJ

For typical console access/OOB use cases only or a lot more data?  If the former, I can't see any reason to mess with anything more than a telemetry-rate plan SIM card in a 3g/4g console server.  Chances are, if you can get cell phone coverage to your cage, it will work fine.  They're also very cheap, lower latency, and nothing more than velcro is needed to install them.



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com<mailto:wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com>> wrote:
I would be more than happy to put an antenna on a data center roof. Depending on throughput requirements, it would probably end up being cheaper to use satellite. Satellite is excellent for actual OOB and obviously much more reliable in a DR scenario.


>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



-------- Original message --------
From: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com<mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>>
Date: 01/29/2013 12:33 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com<mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com>>
Cc: Warren Bailey <wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com<mailto:wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com>>,nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Ethernet Service at 150 S. Market Street, SJ


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com<mailto:mike.lyon at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Last I heard, roof rights are pricey down there :)
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Warren Bailey <
> wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com<mailto:wbailey at satelliteintelligencegroup.com>> wrote:
>
>>  Satellite! ;)

...And somewhat silly, given that it's *that* facility.  But the roof
is mostly clear, if anyone needs to put up a dish.

There are a couple of metro wireless providers that can touch that
location as well, in case your definition of OOB is pretty robustly
out-of-band...

But the likely solution is a network provider already there or nearby.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com<mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>




More information about the NANOG mailing list