My router is set up with a 192.168.1.1 address scheme.
I would like to create a separate subnet on port 4 of 192.168.2.1 just for ip cameras.
The reason I want to do this is simply to keep the ip camera traffic away from the main subnet so the cameras don’t slow down the network.
I would like the 2 subnets to be able to talk to one another and “see” one another, but not effect bandwidth or cause bottlenecking or any type of network slowdown.
Basically segregating the camera traffic from all other traffic.
Yes, as long as the 2 ports are not bridged or switched, they will be routed. When routing it keeps the network on separate broadcast domains. You are still limited to the capacity of the MikroTik, but for a SOHO you should be fine.
in the beginning there where hubs , then your trafic goes to all devices in the network.
since the invention of switch the trafic only goes to the devices that need the trafic … so if you put a POE switch in between and also connect the NVR to it, than there wil be no trafic going to the main switch. unless someone is watching
Some NVR systems have 2 ethernet ports, then you can create a separate network …
You are on the right track. For our IP cameras we just created a VLAN and assigned the VLAN to a port. Then the cameras are on their own broadcast domain. If you want the two subnets to communicate with each other just put the VLAN on the master port of your primary subnet and then the port will be able to route traffic between the two subnets.
In my opinion VLANS are the way to go, I use they to separate cameras and wifi etc.
That may work just fine too. I am just a fan of VLANs since I trunk multiple VLANS traffic on a single physical port when the need arises. You would have to have a heck of a lot of traffic to bog down even a single gigabit port… And even if I get to the point of reaching those limits I will just trunk my 10g fiber port
How many cameras are you talking about implementing?
With that many cameras I don’t know that it matters. I just like the flexibility of VLANS I can assign them to any physical ports that I want and never have to physically move cables around. Now I am dealing with a handful of different subnets that I am trying to manage so my application is a little different. You are right thought just assigning a physical port on the router to handle a specific subnet is fine.
Now in order for them to communicate I think you will have to bridge the two physical ports. If that is the case remember that bridging is logical and eats at your processor speed… I may be wrong about needing a bridge, I have not experimented with doing it that way before.
If you put cameras and nvr on their own switch, the traffic will not leak outside as the switch will send the traffic to the port it belongs to. Switches learn connected mac addresses so they are not acting as dumb hub. No need to set anything. No need of separate network addresses.
Are you saying I can use the main subnet 192.168.1.1 for everything, and because I am sending the ip cameras and nvr to a poe switch there will be no effect whatsoever on the network?
If that’s true, why do people put things on different subnets and vlans? You could just have each system go to a switch.
I guess the answer may be because you would run out of ip addresses.
You need separate networks if you want to secure them differently and each against the others. Or in case the cameras will broadcast instead just reply to the requests of nvr.
