From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Subject: Re: what tech? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:03:44 +0100 Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020429170344.GR23141@piku.org.uk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020428013622.00a739e0@mail.tumsan.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-admin On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 06:09:00AM -0700, terry white wrote: | on "4-28-2002" "urgrue" writ: | | : along normal copper wires | | a better bet would be coax ethernet. if i recall correctly, longer | runs possible using it. i just checked, and 200M the limit. this also | reduces the wirecount to one. Coax would probably also be dirt cheap since coax-based networking is old tech now :) (although its used a lot in CCTV systems) Just mind its minimum bending radius when bending it round things, a broken piece of coax is a nightmare. | further, i seem to recall a system that superimposed the data on | the power distribution system, and another that used existant phone | lines. The power one would only work if everything was on the same phase and didn't go through any UPSs or filters. Never heard of the phone one (well, it's called 'dsl'...) but I've heard of the opposite - running a phone line and network down one piece of cat5. | from the sounds of it, neither of these applicable. however, wireless | might be a way to go. that, of course introduces security issues ... It also has problems going through solid objects like concrete floors and walls. -- I will not carve gods 6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | www.piku.org.uk wnzrf@cvxh.bet.hx (rot13'd)