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.