From: Jay Hennigan (jay@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jan 17 2001 - 07:07:01 GMT-3
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Patrick Bikar wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> Thanks for the enlightened response.
>
> So practicaly, let's say you are asked on day to configure a couple of router
+
> a terminal server ;-), would you put the "no exec" only on the auxiliary port
s
> of all routers + all the lines of the terminal server that are not used ?
You would put it on the async lines of the terminal server that are used
to connect to the console ports of the routers.
The physical wiring would be such that the console ports of each router
that you want to access would go to an async line (much like an AUX port)
of the terminal server. You don't want the routers trying to run EXEC
on the terminal server, so you set it for NO EXEC on those lines going to
the routers. You DO want to EXEC the routers themselves via their consoles,
and you DO want to EXEC the terminal server from your connected PC to
its console.
The AUX ports on the routers don't come in to play, at least not for
this part of the config.
Think of a terminal server as a router with a whole bunch of AUX ports,
each of which connects to a console port on a router. The terminal
server doesn't participate in the routing process. It works like a
keyboard/video switch to allow you to move around among the actual
routers without unplugging console cables.
This is REALLY essential for the lab. If you can't do it practically
blindfolded, it's likely to be a show-stopper.
BTW, the words "terminal server" in this context have nothing whatsoever
to do with Microsoft's lame software that attempts to reinvent an Xterm
for Windows. That choice of terminology has caused lots of confusion.
-- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:32 GMT-3