On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@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.