NVR5208e routing

[wiedel]

question: can the 5208 route a pc from the camera side through the nvr ... i.e 10.1.1.0 to 192.168.1.0

info: 1] being able to update my cameras from the camera side would really help.
2] be able to use a browser for camera info/maintenance/repair

[Pogo]

The way to do that would be with a dedicated POE switch on the 192.168.1.x network for the cameras, then add them to the NVR individualy as actual network IP cameras..., basically ditching the POE DHCP server of the 5208 and 10.x.x.x network altogether and turning it into a non 'E' (POE) device. You could hang the NVR off the switch, or have them physically separated. You could try the switch into the NVR but could discover channel limitations with that approach among other anomalies. (I personally wouldn't even bother.)

As long as the switch cameras and NVR are on the same subnet as your router, everything will be independently accessible and manageable by whatever means works best for you.

[Revo2Maxx]

For one wire solution to your camera it would be best to access the cameras webui by access to nvr ip address. Then click management, camera then bottom portion click the e next to the camera you want to access. May need to start with one you don't want to first because chrome says 10080 is bad port and that's where it starts. Second one you click 10081 and so on.
If your nvr has virtual host toggle in the Network page of the NVR it will need to be toggled on to access the cameras this way.

[Revo2Maxx]

IF you look at the pictures below you will see the Virtual Host I was talking about under Network. Second picture is access to the camera on Edge using IE tab. It works with 10080 that way however in Chrome it will fail on that port will need to pick one you don't want to work with first and then as I said before the second port will be 10081 and that one then on works in Chrome without an issue. You will need to click on the E next to the camera if you add just the PORT number after the nvr ip address without first clicking the e it will not open anything and just give an error. Looking at the 2 pictures below you can see in the first picture it is the NVR only the second picture has the same IP just there is a port number.

Screenshot (786).png (67.34 KiB) Viewed 3335 times

Screenshot (787).png (287.92 KiB) Viewed 3335 times

[wiedel]

Revo and Pogo,
You guys are the best. Thank you for taking the time for me. It is much appreciated.
You each provided me with a master stroke of insight.

Pogo, I did some homework on the traffic on my two networks, I could in fact consolitate to one network.
That gives me an option.
Revo, using the little "E" (IE browser) in the NVR - Camera part of the webui, gave me a tool.

Little backstory here....
I'm a retired IT guy(Verizon) with a background in networking; before growing up with LANs and routers. Worked
servers and PCs the last 15 years before retiring. Finding and fixing issues is who I am, but, nobody does it alone. I personally
don't know an IT Superman. My skillset is getting dated, I need all the help I can get. Each of you were an insightful key.

Soooo.... I just couldn't get the NVR to be a router, I tried, I came to the conclusion the NVR wasn't meant too.
The appearent undocumented "bridging" option is a nightmare. I still don't know what it's for...
That lead me to drag out a 15 year old Cisco(now Linksys) out of the closet. (Linksys E1000)
The docs say it can be a secondary router behind my main Asus RT-AC88u.
I thought keeping the camera network (10net) and server network (192net) apart made sense to me; as I was worried about the volume
of camera traffic flooding my main network.
(Pogo, That now seems, that the issue I thought I might have, was unfounded... I actully looked at the traffic ..
it ain't that bad on my 1gb networks.)

But, I thought that a router between 10net and 192net was simpler solution, and for IT former IT geek ... Cooler.

I could not get the virtual link to function .... what was I doing wrong with the config .. it had to be one side or the other?
The docs for both routers are great facts, but not insightful. I did some pings on the router interfaces , okay. Everything answered.
Each end, of the would be virtual link, answered up. So happens they should also work as the webui for each router. so it tried it.
The main router was okay. But, the Linksys side was wonky... sometime worked, mostly didn't.
Sometimes gave me *** a camera interface *** ...what the heck!
It was a foscam interface and that was blowing up on my opera browser. (Foscam only talks to IE). Then I used Edge
and got in onto the Linksys ipaddr that was supposed to be for the Linksys router on the 192net.
(Meanwhile, the Foscam was working fine on the 10net side of the NVR.)

But, but, but the camera was answering on the 192net too!

(I was losing brain cells by then). Okay the camera was on the 10net, so I took away the 10net from the linksys and left a lone pc
on the 10net side, and left the virtual link up on the 192net side.

**Every freaking thing was now working, I could cross the linksys and the Asus routers, and get out to the internet.** (mind blown).

As it turns out the Foscam was answering to two different ipaddrs, 192.168.1.3(the link point on the Linksys) and 10.1.1.18(the camera).
( it was being back routed thru the Linksys)

I proceeded to access the Foscam and do a default/reset.
That mamacita Foscam R2 gave it up... shes dead. finnis. The Foscam didn't come back - ever.

And they all lived happily everafter.

Alas, the end of an exiting saga of routers, cameras, and life.

Thanks again guys! That was i good one!

[Pogo]

Boy are you a glutton for punishment! (But most Verizon folks I used to work with all were. LOL) Any chance you're an Ohio Verizon guy? I was up to my ass in Verizon territory way back when.

Retired catv/broadband IT cable modem pioneer here..., from the last glory days of 450mHz coax plant to the magical reality of fiber. Quite a ride. I had a blast.

If you'll induldge a fellow old-timer a follow-up observation, (and while I can truly appreciate the fun factor of dragging out the old Linksys box and pulling that off), you're still making your setup too complicated and less than optimumly flexible for what I think you want to do with it, at least in my humble crusty old tired brain cells opinion.

And as you've discovered, network bandwidth will not be an issue, though the 5208 at 320mbps max input bandwidth could be if taxed with its camera limitations (as published) whether they be directly connected to the NVR POE switch itself or to an external one. While not likely to happen without total abandon of a logical approach to simultaneously running more the four 4K cameras at 30fps, the NVR will be the bottleneck for the camera network should you begin to experience issues.

The main difference between using the NVR POE switch and DHCP server and a seperate POE switch and your Asus for the DHCP activity is the flexibility to manage (and monitor) the cameras independently from the NVR as well as from/with the NVR vs. having to use the NVR (either directly or via Web UI), Amcrest Surveillance Pro software or the Amcrest View Pro app. An external switch setup still accommodates those options while also providing the additional flexibility and simplicity to directly manage any IP camera across the network via its own UI for addition to the NVR with its pre-determined configuration. So long as the camera is an ONVIF compliant device, the NVR should recognize any such independent settings from any brand of camera and also allow modification and/or embellishment of the settings -- such as certain IVS capabilities not necessarily available or applied when configured soley by the NVR. This is an ever evolving area that can be hit/miss, but more consistency among IVS feature recognition/compatibility on a vendor by vendor basis seems to be the trend vs. proprietary implementations locking a user into a brand specific solution if they want the latest greatest AI setup.

A common subnet topology simplifies everything network-wise on all levels.

Router: 192.168.1.1 (or 192.168.50.1?)
Switch: 0.0.0.0
NVR: 192.168.1.100
Cams: 192.168.1.101, 102, 103,..... exclusively reserved in the Asus dhcp server (or other network-wide dhcp server if applicable) for each camera.

The whole shootin' match can be added to any other software-based surveillance solution for whatever purposes, or just a couple cameras, or can be expanded beyond the 8 channel limitation of the NVR by a combination of NVR and software (or another cheapie NVR) simply by adding more external POE capacity. Any brand IP camera will work to one degree or another with such a setup.

Adding externally networked cameras is easily accomplished by just adding them one at a time according to the basic parameters established in the camera software itself:

Amcrest Add Camera.jpg (101.35 KiB) Viewed 3252 times

Once added, a camera simply occupies a channel beginning with channel 1 on up.

Amcrest Added Device.jpg (96.78 KiB) Viewed 3252 times

Select Encode and the channel number and there you have it..., almost.

Amcrest Settings.jpg (80.28 KiB) Viewed 3252 times

[Pogo]

And the final result of all this you ask? Voila!

Furnace Thermometer.jpg (179.56 KiB) Viewed 3252 times

[wiedel]

Hi Pogo! I'm in the process of making a graphic of my network. I'll send it. It'll make more sense I hope.
I'm in Maryland and spent 20yrs in a data center. Phone and the military are much the same... good experience... glad its over...

[Pogo]

I spent 20 years in rock n roll and 26 more in broadband. Also much the same..., if I remember correctly. LOL

[wiedel]

Hope this works and is not TMI