We do a lot of tunnels back to a few data centers and an Amazon instance. If you are talking Radius it’s always good to have one one-site at least.
I like these: http://www.acmemicro.com/Product/2923/Supermicro-SC523L-520B-2U-Chassis-14-5-in-Depth-2x3-5-in-Internal-Front-I-O-ATX-520W-Black-CSE-523L-520B?gclid=CjwKEAiA8JbEBRCz2szzhqrx7H8SJAC6FjXXyDkNekNGkmQnFtGCWCy377xr_yXMbL--K3Cgo_vVwxoCl2Dw_wcB <http://www.acmemicro.com/Product/2923/Supermicro-SC523L-520B-2U-Chassis-14-5-in-Depth-2x3-5-in-Internal-Front-I-O-ATX-520W-Black-CSE-523L-520B?gclid=CjwKEAiA8JbEBRCz2szzhqrx7H8SJAC6FjXXyDkNekNGkmQnFtGCWCy377xr_yXMbL--K3Cgo_vVwxoCl2Dw_wcB> Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net --- http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric > On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> > wrote: > > When working with a smaller remotely located network, is your preference to > install a server on that network for monitoring and such, or to just tunnel > back to your main location for monitoring? > > I've got two remotely located networks with space-restricted sites where I > could install a shallow rack-mount server for some simple VMs. Specifically, > One site is restricted to about 20" deep and 4U, and another restricted to > about 12" deep and 1U. I wouldn't need much processing power, so some older > servers could be sufficient. > > I'm debating whether to go through the effort of finding and setting up small > servers to do monitoring, RADIUS, etc directly on the network, or to just > continue using my main location with tunnels. > > Any suggestions are welcome.
