Re: Conserver through a proxy server?
Thu, 7 May 2009 21:11:40 GMT
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM, John Stoffel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Zonker> For simplicity, let's call my conserver the "Lab", and the
Zonker> other one is "Other"...
Zonker> The Other conserver shares a subnet with a group of console
Zonker> servers. There is no router there. (I found this out after my
Zonker> last message...) So, the Other conserver host has two legs,
Zonker> one for the Management Net, and the other to the console
Zonker> * I was trying to get access to two console servers
Zonker> directly, to access one port on each, while the Other
Zonker> conserver would still have control of all the other ports. (I
Zonker> knew that there was no VPN gear terminating on that console
Zonker> server net. I was thinking I needed a proxy, so I could get
Zonker> through their router...but there isn't one.) OK, I can't get
Zonker> there from here. :-(
Umm... why? If you've already got a conserver Other managing ports on
that subnet, why the need for "Lab" to access "Other" ports?
To clarify: The two hosts serve one business unit, but managing the
hardware and OS falls to a different unit.
The basic answer is that there are two different operations groups, and both
have picked Conserver as their tool of choice for managing remote access
tot heir consoles. (As a result, I cannot 'merge' the two into a "distributed
configuration", since each business unit has different staff, needing access
to different sets of hosts.) If we could get past the politics of the two groups,
I'd wager that nobody in either group (besides me) wants to consider being in
charge of a combined Conserver config, handling user changes for both groups. :-|
Given the politics (where " politics = time + $ " ), adding a $1200 console
server seems the faster, practical option, and it can be re-deployed if/when
the host(s) move to a different data center.
ConsoleTeam - Support and training services for Conserver users.