Ubiquiti P2P setup for passing standard LAN and IPC LAN?

[Ri22o]

I have a friend who had some items stolen from his truck and has realized that his cameras were not up to snuff. He has since purchased two of Andy's varifocals and we are in the process of getting them setup.

He has a couple out buildings that he would like to eventually put cameras on, but would also like to have his regular network there for internet. What would be needed to make this happen?

Do the Nanostations need to support VLAN tagging or would it just pass through and be handled by the router? Can someone put a doodle together of how this would be setup and what items would be needed?

 

[TonyR]

Do the Nanostations need to support VLAN tagging or would it just pass through and be handled by the router?

When configured as a Layer 2 Transparent Bridge it's like a CAT-e cable with data but no POE.
You can connect a Wireless Access Point n the outbuilding to the same switch that is connected to the cams.
A wireless router configured as an AP (DHCP disabled, LAN set to static IP in same subnet as cams and radios) will also work.

 

[Ri22o]

A wireless router configured as an AP (DHCP disabled, LAN set to static IP in same subnet as cams and radios) will also work.

But if you're wanting to keep the cams from accessing the internet, would this not allow them internet access when it gets back to the main building and router?

Since he would need a managed switch between router and initial Nanostation to attach the remote IPC network to the main IPC switch, then this should also work to route the traffic from the remote buildings to the router and main network as well, if I am thinking about all of this correctly.

 

[TonyR]

I'm thinking that since the Ubiquiti bridge is a Layer 2 device then you could pass ALL traffic from the router in the Main building, across the bridge, to a VLAN-capable router in the remote building; set up a VLAN in it there to isolate the cams from the Internet. That same router in the remote building would provide Internet to those needing it and I'm thinking an additional VLAN (or "Guest" Wi-Fi setup) for them could keep them from seeing the network back at the Main building.

 

[Ri22o]

This is what I had pictured in my head. Would something like this work? (Not pictured are any needed POE injectors)

He has multiple outbuildings, so that is the reason there is the additional Nanostation at the end of the chain. After this the series would repeat.
I also figured, in the event he wanted to add more outbuilding cameras later on, it would be easier to only need to manage one port on the switch. Additional cameras would simply just plug into the stand alone POE switch.

 

[kd5mdk]

Depending on the layout of the outbuildings, would it be simpler to have some of the cameras connect via wifi to an SSID on the 10.7.83.x network?
You might also find it easier to put a 16+ port switch if you can find one cheap at the outbuilding and just configure 8 or more of them for camera duty, rather than having a small managed switch and an additional PoE Switch. I see them come up moderately often on Facebook Marketplace. I bought a pair of TP-Link SG2428Ps for $99 each for example which is way overkill for my needs.

 

[Ri22o]

Depending on the layout of the outbuildings, would it be simpler to have some of the cameras connect via wifi to an SSID on the 10.7.83.x network?
You might also find it easier to put a 16+ port switch if you can find one cheap at the outbuilding and just configure 8 or more of them for camera duty, rather than having a small managed switch and an additional PoE Switch. I see them come up moderately often on Facebook Marketplace. I bought a pair of TP-Link SG2428Ps for $99 each for example which is way overkill for my needs.

Cameras connecting via wifi is not anything I would ever consider; they need to be hardwired.

I was structuring it that way to make it easier for future expansion. Any cameras would just need to plug into the POE switch and nothing would need to change on the managed switch.

 

[looney2ns]

Depending on the layout of the outbuildings, would it be simpler to have some of the cameras connect via wifi to an SSID on the 10.7.83.x network?
You might also find it easier to put a 16+ port switch if you can find one cheap at the outbuilding and just configure 8 or more of them for camera duty, rather than having a small managed switch and an additional PoE Switch. I see them come up moderately often on Facebook Marketplace. I bought a pair of TP-Link SG2428Ps for $99 each for example which is way overkill for my needs.

Wifi Cams should be avoided, if you expect any sort of reliability.

 

[kd5mdk]

I think it's a tradeoff between how much infrastructure you want to put per camera, per building. If you have 5+ outbuildings each of which has a value of say $3000 and needs 2 cameras to cover it, installing a nanoStation in each building with PoE switch or injectors and 2 cameras gets very expensive. You have to find a way of supporting multiple buildings per switch without inducing ground loops, excessive broadcast domains, etc. If you have 2 outbuildings that need cameras, that's a lot easier.

WiFi problems come from having too many clients on a channel / broadcast domain, RF interference from other local transmitters, bad hardware/firmware implementations, and using protocols that are sensitive to transient issues. In a rural area where you can dedicate a specific network to a limited number of clients, don't have other transmitters, and can pick your camera vendor a lot of those problems are within your control, and you can decide if it's better to have no camera in that location than the cost of doing it properly.

 

[Ri22o]

I think it's a tradeoff between how much infrastructure you want to put per camera, per building. If you have 5+ outbuildings each of which has a value of say $3000 and needs 2 cameras to cover it, installing a nanoStation in each building with PoE switch or injectors and 2 cameras gets very expensive. You have to find a way of supporting multiple buildings per switch without inducing ground loops, excessive broadcast domains, etc. If you have 2 outbuildings that need cameras, that's a lot easier.

WiFi problems come from having too many clients on a channel / broadcast domain, RF interference from other local transmitters, bad hardware/firmware implementations, and using protocols that are sensitive to transient issues. In a rural area where you can dedicate a specific network to a limited number of clients, don't have other transmitters, and can pick your camera vendor a lot of those problems are within your control, and you can decide if it's better to have no camera in that location than the cost of doing it properly.

Wifi is not an option. This is because it is both not anything I want to rely on and the cameras that would be deployed are not wifi capable, they are proper, POE ethernet cameras.

 

[TonyR]

I think it's a tradeoff between how much infrastructure you want to put per camera, per building. If you have 5+ outbuildings each of which has a value of say $3000 and needs 2 cameras to cover it, installing a nanoStation in each building with PoE switch or injectors and 2 cameras gets very expensive. You have to find a way of supporting multiple buildings per switch without inducing ground loops, excessive broadcast domains, etc. If you have 2 outbuildings that need cameras, that's a lot easier.

They're got some decent lightning there in the OP's state of Indiana and any money saved by "supporting multiple buildings per switch" would be quickly vaporized by ESD from a nearby lightning strike.

The cost of Ubiquiti radios and their setup pales in comparison to that of initial conduit and/or cable installation between buildings and the very possible repair and replacement costs at a later date from damage by ESD, induced by a nearby lightning strike.

If I were going to the expense and trouble of networking buildings with anything other than wireless it would be fiber, nothing metallic.

 

[TonyR]

Wifi is not an option. This is because it is both not anything I want to rely on and the cameras that would be deployed are not wifi capable, they are proper, POE ethernet cameras.

FWIW, I'm not referring to using a camera with built-in Wi-Fi, they have very low transmitter power and low receiver sensitivity...I'm talking about plugging any Ethernet-based "proper POE" camera of your choice into a Ubiquiti radio, capable of extremely reliable 5 GHz (wireless-AC) communications with 450+ Mbps throughput in a properly configured and setup link between them using proprietary protocol for stability and reliability.

 

[wittaj]

FWIW, I'm not referring to using a camera with built-in Wi-Fi, they have very low transmitter power and low receiver sensitivity...I'm talking about plugging any Ethernet-based "proper POE" camera of your choice into a Ubiquiti radio, capable of extremely reliable 5 GHz (wireless-AC) communications with 450+ Mbps throughput in a properly configured and setup link between them using proprietary protocol for stability and reliability.

I don't think he was replying to you

 

[Ri22o]

FWIW, I'm not referring to using a camera with built-in Wi-Fi, they have very low transmitter power and low receiver sensitivity...I'm talking about plugging any Ethernet-based "proper POE" camera of your choice into a Ubiquiti radio, capable of extremely reliable 5 GHz (wireless-AC) communications with 450+ Mbps throughput in a properly configured and setup link between them using proprietary protocol for stability and reliability.

I don't think he was replying to you

 

[TonyR]

I don't think he was replying to you

I get that....just clearing up a possible misconception about Wi-Fi cams (not good) and Ethernet cams when connected properly to a quality radio link (can be very good).

 

[TonyR]

 

[Ri22o]

I get that....just clearing up a possible misconception about Wi-Fi cams (not good) and Ethernet cams when connected properly to a quality radio link (can be very good).

I was bagging what you were raking and plan to propose wireless links for between the buildings. I've no issues with those at all, but to go through all of the hassle and then rely on wifi for the camera link is

 

[TonyR]

I was bagging what you were raking and plan to propose wireless links for between the buildings. I've no issues with those at all, but to go through all of the hassle and then rely on wifi for the camera link is

I get it....