@ahmedaburaihan wrote:
I think I need to add something to this point.
In todays converged network, most of the companies use Console Servers such as OpenGear, MOXA and etc. So the idea that Console port is used to have physical access and management is used for remote management is not so accurate.
There has to be a concrete difference. My question is If i have Console Server (like OpenGear) and I can access my switch from any location in the world, do I need to configure my management port also???
Would be thankful for an answer.
Hmm, cannot comment on most companies using Console Servers for network devices, now a days. Back when I retired, which has been some years now, it wasn't common for network devices, although terminal servers have been, for years, available to also remote access a Cisco network device's console port, either in-band or out-of-band. (Heck, at sites with two WAN routers, could use aux port on each router to reverse telnet to peer router's console port.)
In fact, my experience most network devices used an in-network management IP for 99.9% device management and only resorted to even using the console port when there was some issue where we wanted to see the console output. A dedicated physical management port, if network device had one, was almost never used.
But, assuming a console port was speed and/or feature restricted, I might very much want a management port to provide network "speed" access, in a more secure path, than using just a management IP available on an "ordinary" port.
So perhaps, yes, there's isn't much "need" for a dedicated management port, "back then" or today, but for some use cases, it might be a desirable, or in the eyes of the users, a "needed" feature.
In my experience, difference companies often have very different viewpoints on what they believe they need, especially before vs. after some "event". Much "need" goes hand-in-hand, with cost, also again before vs. after some "event".
