It seems to me like your layout is a typical PtP (Point to Point) connection, not a PtMP (Poiint to Multipoint) one (for which IGMP may be useful or needed).
A single device is 60 €, either Rx or Tx, but you need two of them, one Receiver and one Transmitter. (and the transmitter is out of stock at the moment).
The new version is 77 € so 144 € for the pair.
And the kit with the pair is seemingly unavailable on the EU shop)
But available on the US one: https://www.tesmart.com/products/hke120-eh23
Curiously on amazon.it the kit is available (for more money but probably if you consider shipping there won’t be much difference).
And it has to be understood if the IR-remote is only in the kit or if there is anyway one with each device.
Be VERY aware that you cannot mix the new model with the old model.
Personally I would give them the 2025 award for “the most chaotic site where you cannot find what you want” for BOTH their EU shop AND the Amazon shop.
For normal use, it is necessary to disable the IGMP when connecting to an Ethernet switch
These kinds of (cheap) IPKVM are not AFAIK really-really IP, they are more “RJ45KVM”, they can use a network infrastructure/cables but they only “talk” to each other, actually this can be an advantage, as they are easier to configure and they normally just work.
This said, you should (IMHO) forget about this kind (or get an e-cheapo no-brand chinese one for less than half of that money) or get what I believe is the “entry level” of “real” IP KVM, neet the newish glinet comet: https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-rm1/
only a little more pricey, but (depending on your use) you could get away with only one GL-RM1 or a GL-RM1+Atx board
the NVR LAN is well hidden behind that Fortinet firewall and therefore network wise is on a different subnet
I agree with you it would be better to get a real IP KVM , but i honestly think at this point for a clean config… that unfortunately the Tesmart devices are best for my use case.. do you agree?
Not on the drawing you posted.
In that drawing there is a connection from the NVR to the Mikrotik switch A, and the firewall is connected to the Mikrotik switch A, not to the NVR.
But since you have two Mikrotik switches on the connection that shouldn’t be a problem, as you can use VLANs if needed.
Of course I don’t, I just stated as much.
I wouldn’t spend “real” money on those.
From your drawing it is not clear which device is on the first floor, if it is a self-standing monitor+keyboard+mouse, dedicated to the NVR stuff or if it is a PC/laptop.
Since you need anyway a monitor, a mouse and a keyboard on the first floor, for what it costs you could add a teeny-tiny PC[1] (that could be used also for something else apart from watching paint dry through the cameras) and need only one “real IP” KVM in the ground floor.
You would anyway spend more money than the 160€ or so of the tesmart.de IPKVM, but you would have “better” (IMHO) reusable in other configurations stuff.
On the other hand, if you are on the cheap, there are cheaper no-brand devices around, and I don’t think that they are that bad.
The device is a self-standing (mini/micro) computer with these functions:
receive (input) the local HDMI signal from a PC (or similar device) and transmit it somehow over IP on a web page accessible by browser
emulate (output) locally a mouse and keyboard that is actually received over IP from the “commanding” PC/computer mouse and keyboard actions.
some other optional functions (reset/power) for the device connected to it remotely (via the additional board, compatible with ATX style of power supply/reset).
If you prefer, it is a sort of remote desktop.
So you need only one of these devices near the NVR and connected to it, and then you can command it from any PC (or similar[1]) that has IP access to the NanoKVM device on the network.
Which device to use on the “other end” depends on how much you want to tinker but “user friendly” (clearly very low power) computer on sticks running Windows 10 should be available under or around 100 €, if you are ok with Linux, even for less. Or an used thinclient.
[1] it can be in theory any computing device that can run a (preferrably Chrome or Chrome based) browser, so even a nanoPi or similar, a FireStick or similar, Intel computer stick, etc.
but then i would effectively need the pc in the kitchen as you had already mentioned..
my Idea was to put the monitor on the kichen wall and a mouse so my mom can turn it on or off when the NVR buzzer sounds and check if it’s my cat in the yard and wants to get fed, through the cameras. because at the moment i have a monitor and mouse in the basement.
therefore this is why i was studying th tesmart project plan..
I am not sure to understand how the NVR buzzer works (how it can be heard from the kitchen), is it somehow extended to the kitchen (or the sound has to go through the Cat5/6 link and goes to the monitor speaker)?
If there is no actual need to “command” the NVR, only to have a look at the cameras, you could get away with a simpler hdmi extender.
In any case having a mouse (cabled, the wireless battery powered ones have this curious feature about always having dead batteries when you need the, not ideal given the typical mom’s patience with technology) will probably be a nuisance, maybe you need a (small) touchscreen monitor.
The "IP KVM"s I’m familiar with can transport over ethernet the following: video (DP / HDMI / DVI-D / VGA … depending on device model), USB (keyboard and mouse) and sound (both directions, they have both “line in” and “aux / line out” connections). So it is possible to connect a small speaker to emit the “NVR buzzer” in kitchen.
On the flop side, the “IP KVM” devices I’m familiar with are not really “IP”. In the best case they are ethernet (and even only L1). Which is indicated in docs (mildly) by “recommending” to have direct connection using ethernet cable (no switches in between).
Once I tested a pair of those “IP KVM” devices to see what they actually do: in a few seconds FDB was full of random MAC addresses. From that I concluded that these devices use ethernet L1 for physical transport layer (due to cheap MII hardware and abundance of ethernet cabling), but don’t conform to ethernet on L2 (i.e. they use even ethernet headers to carry payload, hence random MAC addresses shown by ethernet switches).
Yes, if one “contains” such connection within dedicated VLAN, then the data flow doesn’t spam other ports on same switches, but still poisons FDB.
So one really has to take care to get actual “IP KVM” devices … which are configured with IP addresses etc. and which then allow for connections to be routed via some L3 network (IPsec, Wireguard, plain IP routing). But I fear that most of IP KVM solutions are not of this kind.
the cheaper ones (transmitter+receiver) which allow no switch (only direct cable) they are not “over IP” they are “over Cat5/6 cable”
the mid-range (also transmitter+receiver) ones (like the ones talked about, tesmart, Av-access and el-cheapo “Swallows”) that can go through switches (and that very likely can behave as you describe)
the “real” ones (only a device near the controlled machine, with a proper IP address and stack) that need to be controlled via computer (usually via a browser)
#1 won’t work #2may (with the possible caveats you mentioned) #3 are (were) traditionally rather expensive, in the $/€ 800-1000 range or more, until these small units like the mentioned glinet comet and nanoKVM that are not only very affordable also more “proper” netwrk devices, came out dirt cheap.
The avaccess.com blog has quite a few entries about the matter (of course pushing their products) but that all in all are quite “neutral”.
