That just defeats the IP part of the KVM and in that case you’d better stick with a traditional KVM.
Video cables and USB cables were never designed for a 20m run. Most have difficulties beyond a 2-5m distance.
My servers will be in my basement, at the other end of the house. My C&C machine will be in my office. The entire purpose of remote KVM is such that I don’t have to hoof it all the way down into the basement just to do something quick. Or go back-and-forth if there is something in my office I have to reference while doing the work.
In fact, I suspect that network KVM is exceedingly useful for anyone whose machines are more than five steps away. Even across the room makes a hell of a lot of sense.
…while Lazyness surely is an added bonus,you still do not understand the purpose of IP KVM/BMC for anyone beyond a lazy homenet enthusiast (which is fair enough,but don’t critisise people for stuff then).
BMC/KVM is must when it comes to professional deployments - for even a small DC or most professional settings anything else is unfeasible. And sadly in these settings at some point you will need some point of internet access (Which in most cased a VPN will do fine unless you are customer facing). And no, your solution via jump host is not a good idea - it simply adds a single point of failure that caused a false sense of security (great now you have only one device you need to get into and behind that it’s open field). Besides it’s highly unfeasible for a multiuser enviroment.
Proper Zero Trust, proper firewalling/IDS/IDM proper network segmenation AND proper device security are key.
Tbh, I am not surprised Gl.i was hit so hard here - they chucked out a LOT of new KVM devices recently that it was somewhat likely they had issues - which is a shame because some of their devices have some unique selling points.
Meanwhile I am more surprised that nanoKVM came back with only one issue - their traffic patterns are a major headache still.
Video cables and USB cables were never designed for a 20m run. Most have difficulties beyond a 2-5m distance.
My servers will be in my basement, at the other end of the house. My C&C machine will be in my office. The entire purpose of remote KVM is such that I don’t have to hoof it all the way down into the basement just to do something quick. Or go back-and-forth if there is something in my office I have to reference while doing the work.
In fact, I suspect that network KVM is exceedingly useful for anyone whose machines are more than five steps away. Even across the room makes a hell of a lot of sense.
…while Lazyness surely is an added bonus,you still do not understand the purpose of IP KVM/BMC for anyone beyond a lazy homenet enthusiast (which is fair enough,but don’t critisise people for stuff then).
BMC/KVM is must when it comes to professional deployments - for even a small DC or most professional settings anything else is unfeasible. And sadly in these settings at some point you will need some point of internet access (Which in most cased a VPN will do fine unless you are customer facing). And no, your solution via jump host is not a good idea - it simply adds a single point of failure that caused a false sense of security (great now you have only one device you need to get into and behind that it’s open field). Besides it’s highly unfeasible for a multiuser enviroment.
Proper Zero Trust, proper firewalling/IDS/IDM proper network segmenation AND proper device security are key.
Tbh, I am not surprised Gl.i was hit so hard here - they chucked out a LOT of new KVM devices recently that it was somewhat likely they had issues - which is a shame because some of their devices have some unique selling points. Meanwhile I am more surprised that nanoKVM came back with only one issue - their traffic patterns are a major headache still.