Best solution for multiple 56k lines?

[Gantry]

Here is the basic situation - two remote sites need to connect to a central site's server. Each remote site will have a 56k leased line (this canot be changed) connected to the central office. All the remote locations want to do is login to the central server on one computer (Linux via telnet/ssh) and print server print jobs locally. Here is my ignorant theory on how to set this up:

Central Office - Cisco 1720 with 2 56k CSU/DSU WICs
Remote Side - Cisco 1720 with 1 56k CSU/DSU WIC

Each Remote office will have a switch and an HP JetDirect for remote printing. I initially figured this should be done via straight serial (the server has a Digiboard) and Multiplexors on each side, until I found out how much they cost. Plus, with the muxes, you don't have nearly as many upgrade options.

Am I close here? Any suggestions on other routers? I was thinking the 2620 for the central office, but since the 1720 has 2 WIC slots, I didn't see much of a reason. Price is a big factor here. Thanks in advance for the help...

 

[ScottMac]

I believe what you have in mind will work ok. My recollection from other similar posts is that the 1720 may be fine for a couple 56K lines, but if there's any possible expansion in the future, it may be a tad underpowered.

For the central site, you may want to consider a 2600. It has a bit more capacity, and if you decide in the future to add access-list controls to inbound/outbound traffic, the extra processing capability will come in handy. The 2600 should be able to handle the additional filtering (like drop anything not coming in on port 22) without taking too much of a processor hit.

Also (for consideration), if there may be any future expansion, think about having the two 56K lines delivered over a fractinal T1. You'd get the same bandwidth, but it would be delivered over a single line to the router. Then, if you do expand, or decide you need more than 56K per site, you only have to have the provider "light up" another channel or two on the T1 and reconfigure the router for the additional channel(s).

You might even get a better deal on the T1. More often than not, these days, it is more of a pain for the provider to deliver non-T1 bandwidth. Ten years ago (maybe a little longer), 9600 and 14400 lines ("subrate lines") were very popular....but the equipment to deliver subrate cost about the same (maybe more) as 56/64K. It got to be cheaper for the providers to just drop the cost of 56/64K....eliminating the cost of the additional equipment saved 'em enough to offer the savings. 56/64K is kinda in the same boat these days....

Anyhoo, while you're shiopping for bandwidth, as about a Fractional T1 versus 56/64K lines. Frame relay will be (should be) cheaper at either speed, but review the contract carefully for additional charges (like for going over-rate). If DSL is available at any or all sites, check out the prices for that as well, it's likely to be cheaper than Frame Relay (or more bandwidth at the same price).

Good Luck, Happy Holidays

Scott

 

[Gantry]

Per usual ScottMac, your reply is extremely helpful...

The decision on the actual line is completely out of my hands. My initial recommendation for connectivity was for a DSL line with a dial-up router for backup purposes. The 56k lines are certainly going by the wayside and I haven't dealt with one in quite awhile (to be fair, WANs are not my primary job function). My experiences with thes lines always involved serial connections, which is why I first thought of muxes.

Putting a 2600 at the central site does make sense for future upgrades, but I'll probably recommend a 1720 for now. If the situation arises where they need another remote location, I can simply move the 1720 at the central site to the new remote location and purchase something beefier for the central site. Cost is a bigger factor at this point..

Thanks again, and keep the ideas coming...