Re: IP cameras on ring topology, not star

[Pat Coghlan <info@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, I think it's worth flying it by the project manager again.

Thanks.

Matt Ion wrote:
> J. Sloud wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 09:31:10 -0400, Pat Coghlan <info@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What goes on each pole, add/drop fibre mux of some kind?  Cost?
>>>
>>> Are you thinking of Sonet?  DWDM?
>>>
>>> Real world examples of this type of setup?
>>>
>>
>>
>> This may be a good opportunity to educate your customer on secure
>> wireless technology.  Secure, encrypted wireless is in many ways more
>> secure than hardwired systems.  You can't cut wires where they don't
>> exist.
>> If your customer is worried about interference, check into licensed
>> wireless and stay away from the 802.11 stuff.
>>
>> We've done numerous projects using wireless technology including DHS
>> and DoD sites.  Well known examples are the Port of Oakland and
>> MassPort.
>>
>> A couple links to check out:
>>
>> http://www.marconi.com/Home/customer_center/Solutions/Enterprise/Security%20%26%20Surveillance
>>
>>
>> http://www.verint.com/video_solutions/index.cfm
>
> An additional benfit with wireless: you're looking at using hired mooks
> to set it up and want the simplest cabling solution possible because
> they aren't that technically competent... wireless would eliminate that
> problem: the cameras could all be pre-configured in your shop or office
> or whatever, so all the workers would need to do is mount the cameras
> and plug them in to power.
>
> As this is only a temporary installation, what's supposed to happen with
> all this equipment afterward?  A lack of cables would certainly make
> take-down and cleanup a lot more efficient.
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0618-0, 05/02/2006
> Tested on: 5/2/2006 9:23:57 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

--

-Pat