Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Console Server Recommendation
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:55:02 -0800

On Feb 1, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:

On (2012-02-01 09:07 -0800), Owen DeLong wrote:

I would hardly call conserver software a home-baked solution unless you'd
also call anything based on OSS a "home-baked solution".

Home-baked, i.e. it's not product you can get shipped and it'll work out of
the box and you have organization supporting it.
The shipping solutions are really nothing else than embedded linux running
conserver or equivalent, opengear even gives many of their oftware for
It's certainly not difficult to roll one yourself, but for many of us, TCO
is lot more than just buying opengear.

It's a product you can download, compile, configure and it works out of the box.

It is pretty well supported by the authors and they have been very responsive to
each and every question/feature/other request I have made to them, no matter
how stupid. In fact, it has been better supported in my experience than most
boxed software.

conserver doesn't replace the opengear products, it's a software package that
sits next to them and provides increased functionality of the type you suggested
would be desirable.

It's no more difficult to configure conserver than to set up the DNS to do what
you were suggesting with SSH.

This takes away several of the other features from your list however, that are
implemented using the conserver software.

The required list is satisfied by multiple offerings, including giving IP
address to console port. So there are products in the market doing exactly
what I want at cost which I'd be hard to reproduce even if I calculate my
time as free.

I think you are misunderstanding and thinking I propose conserver as a
replacement for MRV/Cyclades/etc. I do not. I propose it as a way to get
most of the features you wanted that aren't present in those boxes by
adding it to them.

It has the additional advantage that it can provide the same functionality
transparently across a wide variety of tserv hardware so that you can
use multiple manufacturers over time and keep that transparent for the
most part.

I've never seen a case where the control plane console failed to respond
and I didn't need to reboot the router to bring the control-plane back to
life anyway. It's not like a router can (usefully) continue for very long
with a dead/locked-up control plane.

Lot of people don't have way to remotely power cycle devices, if OOB is
separate management-plane, you can power cycle control-plane remotely. It's
probably <50USD BOM addition to list price, which server guys have enjoyed
for over decade and Cisco has been trying to introduce to networking guys.

Agreed. Nonetheless, power cycling the box vs. power cycling the control plane
isn't a huge difference from my perspective.

Only so long as the BIOS doesn't lose its mind which happens with some
unfortunate regularity. With a good IPKVM such as the Raritans, I get

If you can access BIOS from console, you can access it via vPRO/AMT. If you
run into more exotic problem, it's cheaper just to swap that 50<100usd
motherboard than to investigate what happened.

Tell me that again when your device looses it's mind and the vPRO/AMT doesn't
come up with a workable IP address. RS-232 does NOT have this problem.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]