Converged vs. Dedicated Networks For Surveillance Tutorial

Author: Brian Rhodes, Published on Feb 11, 2015

Use the existing network or deploy a new one?

This is a critical choice in deploying video surveillance systems.

Though 'convergence' was a big theme of the past decade, deciding what to do has been much harder in practice.

In this guide, we break down the key factors in this decision, pro and cons, including:

  • IT vs Security Ownership
  • Existing Networks
  • Bandwidth
  • Network Quality
  • Technical Expertise
  • IT vs Security Ownership
  • Politics: Budget / Control / Avoiding Blame
  • Network Size
  • Expansion Difficulty
  • IP Address Conflict / IP Address Pool / Network Class
  • Security Concerns
  • Ongoing Maintenance Costs

*** *** ******** ******* ** ****** * *** ***?

**** ** * ******** ****** ** ********* ***** ************ *******.

****** '***********' *** * *** ***** ** *** **** ******, deciding **** ** ** *** **** **** ****** ** ********.

** **** *****, ** ***** **** *** *** ******* ** this ********, *** *** ****, *********:

  • ** ** ******** *********
  • ******** ********
  • *********
  • ******* *******
  • ********* *********
  • ** ** ******** *********
  • ********: ****** / ******* / ******** *****
  • ******* ****
  • ********* **********
  • ** ******* ******** / ** ******* **** / ******* *****
  • ******** ********
  • ******* *********** *****

[***************]

Selection ********

** *** *******,*********** **** * ****** ********** *** ********* ********* ************ ********, **** **** * ********* ****** ** ********.

IT ** ******** *********

*** ** *** ******* ******* *** ****** ** ** **** actual ****** ** ********, *** ********.

** ** *** ******** *** *** ******** ***********, ***** ** common, ****** *** *****, ********** ** *** *** ****** ** not ***** **** *****.

*** '***** ****' *** ******** ****** ******* ** ************ **** as ******** *** ***** ******. ********** **** ** **** *** have * *** **** ** ****** ****** *** ********* ** network ******** *********, *** ***** ****** *** ** ******* ** the **** ***** ** **** ********.

**** * ******** *******, *** *********** ** ********* ** ********. Potential *********** ******** *** ******* *** ********** ********, ** *** 'blame ****' ** ***** ****** ** ******* ******** *** ** avoided.

Existing ********

**** ******** **** *** ******** ** ****** *** ******* ** continuous ***** ************ *********. **** ** * ****** ********* ** surveillance ***********.

******* ** ****, ****** ** ************ *** ***** *********** *********** problems, *** **** ******* ***** *********.

*********

****** * *** ******* ** ** ******** ****** *** **** little ****** ** ***** ************ ** *** *******, **** ** email ** ****, ***** ***** ***** ********** ** **** * fraction ** ******* ******* ********. *******, ****** ** ******** ** cameras ****** ********** * ******** ** ****** *** ******** ******* infrastructure ***** ******* ******* ** **** *** ******** ***** ******* run ************.

** *** ***** ****, *** *** ************ ** * ********* separate ******* ** *** **** ** ******** * ********* *******. Not **** *** *** ******** ******* ******, *** ********** *** substantial ****** **** ** ** ***, **** **** ********* ******* maintenance ********.

*** ******* ********* ** * ********* ******* **** *** **** to ***** *********. **** * ****** ***** **** **** **** Ethernet ****** *** ****** ******* ** *****-********* *******, *** *** cost ********** ** ********* ** ******* ****** ** ****** *** continues ** ****. ******** * ********* ******* *** ************ ****** removes *** ****** ** ********* ********* ** ****** **** ********. The ******** *********** ***** **** ** **** ** **********, **********, and *********** * *** *****-**** *******.

Quality ** *******

** ********* ** *******, ******** ***** **** ***** ******* ** services ******** *********** ****** ** *****. ********** ******** *** ****** a ********* *** *** ***** ** *********** ******, **** ****, imagined, ** ******** *******.

*** ***** ************* / ********** ** ******** ******* ** ******* for ********* ******** ***** ** *** ******* ** **** **** hardware *** ************** ***** ** ******* **. ** * ******** lacks ******, *** ****** ** ***** ************ ** ***** ******* may ** ******** *** *********.

**** * ********* *******, **** ***** ** *******, *** ***** is ** ******** **** ***** ******** *** *********. *******, **** again ******** *** ********.

Technical *********

** **********, ******** *** ***** **** ****** ** **** ******* with ** ******* *****. *** **** **** ********** *** ********* plays ** ******** * ************ ******* ** ********* *********.

***** * ****** ******* ** ****** *** **** ******* ***** sense ** **** *** **** ** ******** **** ******** ** managed ******** *** *** ******* ************* ****-***. *********** '******* ** Service *** ***** *** ** * ********* *** ********* ****, but **** **** ********** ** ******* ***********. ******* **** ***** of ************* ** ****** ******** *****, *** ****** ****** ******* the ****** ********** ** ******* **************.

** *** *** *******, * ********** ******* ** ********* ******* to ****** *** ******** ******* ** ******* **** *** *** system ****. *** **** ** *** ***** ** ************* ****, but *** ****** ******** ****** ** ******* *** ******* ****** a ****** ******* ******. '**** *** ****' ******** **** ******* configurations *** *********** ** ********* ***** ********, **** **** ****** IT ***** ** ****** *********** *** ****** **** *** ******** them **** ****** **********.

Expansion ********** & ****** ****

** *******, *** ***** *** **** ** *** ******* ** a *** *************. *** ******** ******** ******** ********* ** ******** sites, *** ************** ********** ***** **** ******** *** ** * huge ******* *** ******** *********** ******* ** ******** ***** ** cable ***********.

**** ************* **** ******* ******** ** ******** ********** ******** ********* and ******** ********, *** ********* ***** ** ******** ***** ******* are ** **********. ********, ***** ***** *** ***** ******* **** some *********** ** ****** ********* ** ****. *** *********** **** of ****** ***** *** ** ********** ***********.

*******, *** ********* ********, **** ***** ******* *** ****** ******* buildings, ***** *** ** ********* ********* ** *********. ** **** cases, ********* ******** **** * ******** *********.

Security ********

*** *** *** ***** ** ********* ***** ********* ******* ******* also ** * ****** *******.

** ********** ********** ************ ******* ** *** *** ******* ***** it ****** ** **** ****** **. ********, ******* ****** ** video ***** ********** ******** ****** ** *** ******* *** ******* that ******* ****** ** ******. ** *******, **** ** * priority ** **** ********* **** ** ****** ** *** ****, even **, *** *** ***** ******* ** ****** ***** ***********.

*** ********* ******** ** **** ******** ******* *** ** ********* or ********* *** ******* ** ****, ****** *** ** *** 'low-risk ******' ******** ***** ** ************** ** ******** *****.

Ongoing *********** *****

*** ******* ** *********** ****** ****** *** **** ** ****, and ****** * *** ******.

*******, *** ******* ******* ** * ********* ******* ** * budgeted ** ********** **** ******* *********** *** ****** ** *** users. ******* *** ******* *********** ** * ******** *** ** departments, *** ****** ***** *** * ********* ******* ********* ********** the ******* ** ******* ***********.

*******, *** ********** *********** ** ******* ******* ** ********** ******** or ******** *******. ***** ***** *********** *** ******** ****** *** be ********* ** ********* * ********** *******, ******* ** *********** or ******* ********** ** ****** *** ** * **** ******* area.

*** ******* **** ** * ********* ******* ** **** ****** maintenance *** ****** *** ** ******* ** **** ** ***** addressed. ********* ** *********** ** **** **** *************** ******** ** fixing ********* ******* ** '***** *******' ** * ****, ** well ** * ********** ** **** *** ******** ****** *** service ** '***** ******' ** **** ***** **** ******** ******** once ** ***** *** ****.

Comments (8)

I think you need to add in the maturity of the customer, their infrastructure and the efficiences they may/may not have with respect to managing thereof.

A few years ago this would be more relevant than it could (or should) be today. So-called "convergence" isn't an event but an evolution. In many environments IT will continue to absorb the responsibility for providing the physical security as infrastructure and the security personnel are another end-user.

Casinos might be a special case in that cameras are a mission critical asset and the risk of getting ripped off is both external and internal.

But in most (modern) environments core switches should be gigabit with high capacity interconnects. VLAN tagging is a convenient way to logically isolate IP video traffic.

POE port density can be a problem towards the edge--in which case it might make sense for new/dedicated equipment. But even at that the proliferation of POE for (say) IP phones is becoming common and so is POE.

My point being, a professionally managed, modern network should be able to support IP video. If it's not, maybe IP video is a good reason to modernize. There exists value in using the same infrastructure for IP video and other networking needs. The dedication of a distinct network for IP video is leaving some of that value on the floor.

You are mixing could with should, with what happens with what you think should happen.

The reality is that this is still a significant issue and the political / territorial / fingerpointing aspect has not gone away for the large portion of users where IT and security remains separate.

I don't doubt that political / territorial is still a big deal and relevant. But, hey, so is analog. What I'm saying is the excuses are falling away. Where the security guy used to be able to say "bandwidth" or "security" he can't necessarily do so any more. I don't doubt that they're still the argument, but they won't be forever in many environments. When the argument becomes clearly political, it's increasingly difficult to justify if the infrastructure--itself designed to service the business as a whole as efficiently as possible--is able to do the job for both and makes sense to be managed singularly.

An example from retail, Yum! Brand's 'future store network' would set minimum bandwidth connections to stores, standardize network hardware in-store designed to (logically) segment wifi to customers, POS, digital signage, and IP video. And, no, the LP guy can't really argue duplicate hardware and infrastructure just because he doesn't get along with Joe over in IT..

As long as IP video is managed like analog but with RJ45 instead of BNC connectors, the customer is leaving a lot of 'internet protocol' opportunity on the floor.

"Where the security guy used to be able to say "bandwidth" or "security" he can't necessarily do so any more."

Actually I am saying the IT guys often say this. Not every IT department wants to have video surveillance dumped on then, the increased risk / troubleshooting.

As for retail:

"An example from retail, Yum! Brand's 'future store network' would set minimum bandwidth connections to stores, standardize network hardware in-store "

Retailers have been using converged networks for 10+ years because they have to. When you have stores / branches / sites scattered around the world, it is not that feasible to have multiple independent WAN connections for each service. And for retailers, they have to see the video remotely so the shared WAN becomes a necessity.

Retailers and anyone who runs credit card transactions have PCI-DSS compliance concerns which generally means that if they are a big box store they already have network infrastructure to support VLANs. Otherwise every device, including the surveillance servers gets added to their PCI audit scope of it's on the same VLAN. Even in some small Restaurant chains have some level of VLANs setup. I feel that restaurants, retail, hospitality, and healthcare facilities (due to HIPAA in the US) are the easiest to push for convergence. I have only done project on one campus but higher education seems to be fairly comfortable with convergence as well. They all already have so much junk riding on their network to begin with - AV control systems, teleconferencing, VOIP, etc. In my opinion big box retailers DEFINE converged IT.

It's places like factories and automotive corporations that I have seen the most push back. Anything that has even the most remote chance of impacting production for even a second starts a fire under IT and the production representatives will back them. Security is just a minor department.

i am willing to bet the vast majority of the time the biggest pushback from IT is sheer laziness or fear of the unknown. Just like every field there are people who are good at their job and some that you have to question who they are related to.

"I feel that restaurants, retail, hospitality, and healthcare facilities (due to HIPAA in the US) are the easiest to push for convergence"

Are you sure about that? We did a hospital that was very glad we to hear we were building a physically seperate network for the cameras. The only part of the system connecting to their network being the NVR, which made it easier for them to control.

As for retailers, it depends on the size of the retailer. Do not assume because the retailer or resturant chain is a big one, that they invest a lot in "compliance". The problem is the smaller, franchise owner who has to squeeze what they can from very small margins, like a sharecropper. So many times I have seen them install free, public wireless systems to attract patrons which are also connected to the same network as their old used, Windows based POS systems that didn't even have antivirus protection on them. When you talk to them about segregating the networks so patrons don't see the POS systems, they're like "Sure, as long as it doesn't cost me a dime. Otherwise... uh, yeah, I'll get to it maybe next month."

"I am willing to bet the vast majority of the time the biggest pushback from IT is sheer laziness or fear of the unknown."

Unfortunately, yes, very true. Not all the time, but more often than non-IT people probably realize. That's why is you don't have staff that are very IT proficient, you'll probably never recognize it.

We don't have a single client using more than 3-5 cameras on their network. I could never put our company's name behind infrastructure that we don't know front to back. If it is impossible to put in our own lines then fine but "convergence" is nice in theory, in practice its a hot mess. Think about it, one day some IT admin screws with the network and blocks port traffic within the network.. Cameras go down and the customer is upset... You consult with IT and they say "we didn't do anything" and you're left with trying to figure out their mess. To the customer it doesn't matter that IT did it, the blame game gets you no where. So I say NEVER piggy back on their network unless absolutely nessesary.
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Camera Course Winter 2019 - Last Chance on Jan 24, 2019
Today, Thursday Jan 24th is the last chance to register for the Winter 2019 Camera Course. This is the only independent surveillance camera...
Testing Bandwidth vs. Frame Rate on Jan 23, 2019
Selecting frame rate has a major impact on surveillance bandwidth and storage consumption. But with smart codecs now common and cameras more...
Bosch Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 23, 2019
Bosch's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2017, with 2019 results showing strong net...
Cable Trenching for Surveillance on Jan 21, 2019
Trenching cable for surveillance is surprisingly complex. While using shovels, picks, and hoes is not advanced technology, the proper planning,...
Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
Testing Bandwidth Vs. Low Light on Jan 16, 2019
Nighttime bandwidth spikes are a major concern in video surveillance. Many calculate bandwidth as a single 24/7 number, but bit rates vary...
Avigilon Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 15, 2019
Since IPVM's 2017 Avigilon favorability results, the company was acquired by Motorola and has shifted from being an aggressive startup to a more...
2019 IP Networking Book Released on Jan 14, 2019
The new IP Networking Book 2019 is a 285 page in-depth guide that teaches you how IT and telecom technologies impact modern security...
Pelco Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 11, 2019
Pelco had a significant favorability problem amongst integrators in our previous study (see 2016 Pelco results). Now, in the first edition of our...
Winter 2019 IP Networking Course on Jan 10, 2019
Today is the last day to register for the Winter 2019 IP Networking course. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Testing Bandwidth vs. Frame Rate on Jan 23, 2019
Selecting frame rate has a major impact on surveillance bandwidth and storage consumption. But with smart codecs now common and cameras more...
Camera Course January 2019 on Jan 23, 2019
This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology testing. Lots of manufacturer training exists...
Bosch Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 23, 2019
Bosch's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2017, with 2019 results showing strong net...
Intersec 2019 Show Report on Jan 23, 2019
The 2019 Intersec show, held annually in Dubai, is now complete. IPVM attended for 3 days, interviewing numerous Chinese and Western video...
2019 Camera Book Released on Jan 22, 2019
This is the best, most comprehensive security camera training in the world, based on our unprecedented testing. Now, all IPVM PRO Members can get...
Milesight Company Profile on Jan 22, 2019
Milesight Technology, a Chinese company building an International branded business, says they are slowly building their presence through a series...
Cable Trenching for Surveillance on Jan 21, 2019
Trenching cable for surveillance is surprisingly complex. While using shovels, picks, and hoes is not advanced technology, the proper planning,...
Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
The IP Camera Lock-In Trend: Meraki and Verkada on Jan 18, 2019
Open systems and interoperability have become core features of video surveillance systems, as virtually all professional IP cameras integrate with...
NYPD Refutes False SCMP Hikvision Story on Jan 18, 2019
The NYPD has refuted the SCMP Hikvision story, the Voice of America has reported. On January 11, 2018, the SCMP alleged that the NYPD was using...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact