separating network traffic

[DeLicious]

so, to set up my question, i have 4 IP cameras around the house. as far as i know, they only create network traffic when there is a connection to them. i also have a zoneminder install ready to go to monitor the 4 cameras, but when i have this going, zoneminder is constantly monitoring all 4 cameras, completely clogging my network and making it difficult for me and my wife to surf the internet on our laptops.

so i thought i would divide the network somehow so that all the camera traffic was routed separately from our normal surfing traffic. i guess this entails buying another wireless router (as some of the camera traffic is connected by a wireless bridge). so, with a second router, i should be able to connect one of the numbered (not incoming internet) port of the second router to a numbered port on my main router, then connect all camera traffic to the second router instead of the first. then, camera traffic to zoneminder would be handled completely by the second router without the primary router knowing about it, i could surf the internet using the primary router and its internet connection without the secondary router being affected by it, and i could still connect to zoneminder as well as the individual cameras from my laptop.

does this all sound kosher?

 

[CollinR]

Thats the basics of how it should work.

Do you have to use MJPEG mode?

Enabling MPEG4 mode in dual streaming camera will get you a ~80-90% BW reduction. You may have to I don't know that zoneminder supports MPEG4 streamers.

Do you have to use wireless?

Outdoor Cat5 is not cheap but not out of line with a new router either. Works a million times better, your router will probably die anyway. Consumer wifi gear isn't designed to to used that heavily often they will overheat and croak.

You might also put them on seperate protocols, B for cameras and N for laptops. Really though you should wire them if you want it to work well for a long time.

 

[DeLicious]

thanks, Collin... maybe I ought to invest in a more robust router. The problem for the one camera on the wireless bridge is not that it's outside, it's just in a part of the house where I can't reach any wire (at least, neatly). In fact, none of my cameras are directly wired to the router... the others are on powerline ethernet modules.

As for streaming protocol, I'll look into what zoneminder and my cameras support (they're Panasonic BL-C10A's, if anyone else knows if they can do mpeg4).

 

[rrockoff]

so, to set up my question, i have 4 IP cameras around the house. as far as i know, they only create network traffic when there is a connection to them. i also have a zoneminder install ready to go to monitor the 4 cameras, but when i have this going, zoneminder is constantly monitoring all 4 cameras, completely clogging my network and making it difficult for me and my wife to surf the internet on our laptops.

so i thought i would divide the network somehow so that all the camera traffic was routed separately from our normal surfing traffic. i guess this entails buying another wireless router (as some of the camera traffic is connected by a wireless bridge). so, with a second router, i should be able to connect one of the numbered (not incoming internet) port of the second router to a numbered port on my main router, then connect all camera traffic to the second router instead of the first. then, camera traffic to zoneminder would be handled completely by the second router without the primary router knowing about it, i could surf the internet using the primary router and its internet connection without the secondary router being affected by it, and i could still connect to zoneminder as well as the individual cameras from my laptop.

does this all sound kosher?

Hi DeLicious,

I have accomplished a similar task on my home network. In my situation I needed to split up my cable modem connection between a work network (I telecommute) and a home network. Both networks share the cable modem connection but neither network knows about the other. This was actually quite easy to do with VLANs. Here is how I broke it out:

Home = Member of VLAN1 & VLAN3

Work = Member of VLAN2 & VLAN3

Cable Modem = Member of VLAN3

VLAN means Virtual Local Area Network. It is an easy way to segment different networks on the same switch. Here is a link to a Wikipedia entry for more details on VLANs: Wikipedia VLAN .

A while back I purchased a Buffalo GHR-125 router for $24.99 then I used dd-wrt to make this router a wired to wireless ethernet bridge. Many routers these days use a Linux kernel. dd-wrt replaced the Linux kernel code that gives you much more control. Part of the dd-wrt code allows you to create a VLAN. So if you have a 4-port router, you could make 4 VLANs.

dd-wrt also has some pretty good Quality of Service (QoS) settings. I use Vonage for my telephone service. I give the SIP protocol (TCP & UDP ports 6050 - 6051) the highest priority on my network. This helps me to have crystal clear calls even while my kids are sucking up bandwidth on youtube.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you need any more detail.

Best Regards,

Rod

 

[DeLicious]

thanks for the info, Rod, but it sounds like your two networks don't know anything about each other. i don't actually want to create two networks, but have two routers on the same network since i want to be able to access the cameras from my laptop. i was hoping that the setup i proposed would keep all camera traffic on one router (the secondary) and not interrupt anything going on in the first router (the primary, for web surfing), all the while being able to access some of the traffic on the secondary from the laptop connected to the primary. since the secondary router would be acting essentially as an intelligent switch (albeit, a wireless one), it wouldn't be sending any traffic to the primary router unless specifically requested by something connected to the primary.

 

[huggy59]

Actually, all you have to do is get a switch and wire all the cameras and the master camera control machine into that switch, then wire the switch into your router. The switch will effectively keep the camera and master PC traffic local (unless broadcasts are being used by any of the devices). A switch will only forward what it needs to off the same switch. No need for VLANs, new router, etc.

If your laptops or other machines are using the same wireless, either wire them to the router, another switch, or use a second wireless router just for them. However, I frown on wireless as it's just one big shared network, while switches with wires will segment things nicely and automatically for you without limiting bandwidth appreciably. Just keep all the heavy traffic sources and destinations on one switch.

 

[CollinR]

Yes but it you use a router with integrated switch you have control over broadcasting too. That and a basic router is not much more then a switch as far as price goes, probably cheaper as they are far more common.

 

[DeLicious]

yes, the second router would essentially be acting as a switch, but with wireless access to boot.

 

[SnyperBob]

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the info about VLANs. They use them at my work and I've been meaning to look into setting up my own. Nothing like learning something new for not much $$

/threadjack (sorry)

 

[huggy59]

Yes, but an additional router will also mean additional configuration issues if/when you get into sharing the stuff on ther Inet. Assuming no security/broadcast domain needs, why route when you can switch?

 

[DeLicious]

because i need the wireless...

since there won't be anything connected to the INET port of the router, nothing will be routed... just switched.

 

[huggy59]

So you're setting it up as an access point. That should work as long as you can separate the broadcast domains, if broadcasting is an issue for the software.

 

[eufreka]

because i need the wireless...

since there won't be anything connected to the INET port of the router, nothing will be routed... just switched.

technically, can't you "stack" the routers (cascade, really), thus isolating the wireless "outside" the rest of your internal net...

 

[CollinR]

Yes, the problem is he is swamping the radio in his current router. You must have 2 different access points, one for cams and another for computer use.


EDIT:

And you would want to plug the WAN side into any port on the existing router. Set the new router as a fixed IP outside the DHCP pool on the first router. You will need to setup port forwarding on both routers for remote access.

 

[upstatemike]

This is one reason I have never embraced wireless networking. In the last couple of years I have gone from 5 network devices to 32 and am aggrssively working to move more onto my ethernet backbone. Wireless technologies just do not have the speed or capacity to keep up with home automation bandwidth requirements. Cat5 is your best friend in an automated home.