On 9 March 2016 at 07:36, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org> wrote: Hey,
I'd get something like a 1U ATOM server ($120 eBay) with small SSD ($18). Runup your favorite FOSS OS, and conserver. For more than the single real serialport, you can most likely fit a USB hub inside the case still, and hang a number of USB serial dongles off.
Rackmountable, maintainable, and conserver works great.
+1 on conserver. I think the greatest asset of conserver is, that it harmonises your OOB network into single interface. You can have different generation of OOB kit from different vendors with different level of functionality. Yet you get all the important functions from all of them. a) multiplexing of console access (very nice if person has went to lunch and you really need to access that console now) b) persistent logging of all console output (might be that crucial little detail which will allow vendor to solve your service request) Before I learned about conserver I wanted to use something like cyclades (or what ever it's name is now after two acquisitions) or opengear, just to get those two crucial features I need. But after conserver, I greatly prefer just using Cisco console ports, as then I can use device which is well known and already toolised by the organisation, and will offer all the WAN access options I need, with encryption when needed. But not having multiplexing and persistent logging earlier was deal-breaker, now it's immaterial. Sure opengear and cyclades probably can do few WAN options and probably some encryption, but operationally that would be chore to me, compared to rocking platform I already know. Big hand to who ever caused JNPR to add ISIS/CLNS to SRX (I think DTAG?), I wish someone would get JNPR to add async ports to SRX too, so that I'd have other option than CSCO for OOB. Big thanks to CSCO for still bringing async serial ports to CISCO4321, I know the demand must be rather small. -- ++ytti