On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Randy Carpenter <rcar...@network1.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> > My main requirements would be: >> > >> > 1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't >> > that the point of OOB?) >> >> I don't understand this at all. Why can't an OOB network be ethernet >> based towards the equipment needing management? > > How do I connect to it from many miles away when the network is > down? I have connected to a misbehaving border device at a > remote network via dial-up before, and was able to get it back > up and running. I would not have been able to do that if the > only options were ethernet or ethernet.
Dial up with PPP and then cross the ethernet? Drop off a cellular modem with IP service instead of a dialup modem? Perhaps you haven't noticed but IP over circuit-switched voice lines is giving way to voice over IP packet switched systems. That POTS line the dialup modem needs doesn't have a lot of future left. > But having a console->serial is significantly less complex than > console->IP_Stack->ethernet. So many more things to go > wrong. I've never had a device that had a faulty serial port. I > have seen numerous faulty or misbehaving network ports. I've had faulty serial consoles more than once but that's beside the point. Yes, ethernet-based OOB is more complex than a simple serial console. It's also a lot more effective. At this point the server vendors have gotten it down to a science where it's just as reliable and not especially expensive. Time I'd say for the big iron router vendors to follow suit. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004