RE: terminal server recommendation

["Martin, Christian" <cmartin () gnilink net>]

Charles,

Agreed on some of your points - The ssh issue would be the biggest problem,
however we separate the term servers on a private, out-of-band network, so
we haven't been particularly concerned with telnet snooping, especially
considering the ssh code on Cisco still only has limited platform support.
Something to bring up with our security team nonetheless.  We haven't sen
the amphenols dislodge, and we have hundreds of these babies, so that is
weird.  Maybe a lot of them are dropped downward - haven't inspected them
all.

As far as configs, we can manually copy them via FTP, but as I said, we only
use them for Tservers, so nothing to fancy with PPP, etc.  We do use RADIUS,
which hasn't been a big issue.  I think the primary reason we use them is
high port density and our original network engineers had extensive
experience with them, so they've stuck around.  How many large NSPs have
whole racks of 2511s in the field (I think a lot).

The setup and recovery totally sucks.  I remember the first time I reloaded
one. It prompted for the boot file and I put the config filename in by
mistake.  Whoops, tserver is dead, have to dispatch with a
wacky-pinout-having console cable and rebuild.

*sigh*

We are replacing them with 3660's, unless someone has a better
recommendation (The primary reason being TACACS+ support).

chris



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork () inch com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:28 PM
> To: Martin, Christian
> Cc: 'Charles Smith'; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: RE: terminal server recommendation
>
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, Martin, Christian wrote:
>
> > The Xylogics/Bay/Nortel Remote Annex 4000 can support up tp 
> 72 console
> > ports, and has a great menu interface with great EIA-232 
> functionality.
>
> Eh?  Unless they've added command completion and history, I have to
> disagree there...  Add to that that they don't self-boot and that you
> can't save your config off the box.  And you will *not* just 
> set the thing
> up in a half hour.
>
> > Ports don't hang, they reset on time, etc.  They use 
> amphenol connectors
> > across 25 pair which makes for easy punchdowns and cross-connects.
>
> The amphenols have a nasty habit of not seating properly, 
> especially when
> the box is in a cabinet and some cables have to go upwards rather than
> down...  And when they're half-in, or not perfectly level you 
> one day find
> you can reach four of your six devices...
>
> And there's no ssh.
>
> > One caveat - they are EOL....
>
> Thank God :)
>
> But the code seems to have lived on for a while in the Bay 5300 access
> servers.  I think only Concentric bought into that sham 
> though.  Some evil
> things just cannot be killed by normal means.  Although a 
> good "ping -s
> 1500" directed at an attached PPP user will render it useless 
> until you
> stop.
>
> Perhaps it's because I'm still forced to use them since we 
> have them left
> over from when they were dialup PPP servers or something, but 
> I like them
> less than stinky cheese.  I do get a bit nostalgic because it was the
> first thing I ever "su'd" on, and it does have a BSD code base.  But I
> certainly would recommend anything else over an Annex.
>
> BTW, wanna buy one?  I've got a spare 4000 and two Annex 3's, 
> and a box
> full of octopus cable...
>
> MHO,
>
> Charles
>
> > chris
> >
> >
> > > I would like to deploy a terminal server in several of my
> > > POPs, however cost
> > > is a slight issue. Can anyone on the list recommend a fairly
> > > inexpensive
> > > terminal server (besides Cisco)? Obviously the terminal
> > > server should be
> > > reliable and work - it is the little things that count.
> > >
> > > chas
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com