NVR robbing network speed?

[CastleSurveillance]

Yes, that's kind of the problem. lol I think at least.

That's why I was saying to change it.

I think that I'm just confusing you more now. ; )

Somehow, LAN2 needs a way in/out. Either by going through LAN1 and out to WAN1 (setting the LAN2 gateway to 192.168.1.1) or through its own separate access to WAN1.

The NVR would stay on the 192.168.2.0 network using 192.168.2.1 as its gateway. Assuming that's what you want anyway and separate from some VLAN config differently.

I think you're either misunderstanding on this works on ubiquiti - or I am misunderstanding how it works.

I have two networks set up through the same security gateway.

1st port on gateway - 192.168.1.xxx which is attached to my switch, which powers all my AP's, my WAN & LAN for my home
2nd port on gateway (VLAN 2) - 192.168.2.xxx Which is only hooked up to the NVR.

 

[Mike A.]

I understand...

Your 192.168.1.0 network has 192.168.1.1 (your router) as the gateway for all devices on the 192.168.1.0 subnet.

Your router on 192.168.1.1has a gateway set up to the Internet (whatever IP that gets assigned and routed to your ISP).

So you have a valid path (gateway) for devices with 192.168.1.x addresses to get out to the Internet via 192.168.1.1 -> ISP.

As it is now, your 192.168.2.0 subnet points to 192.168.2.1 as it's gateway. How does 192.168.2.1 get to your ISP?

As above, that needs to be defined in some way, either by going through LAN1 or by setting up some direct access to your ISP from LAN2. I don't know how that works on the Ubiquiti box. But it does need to work in some way in order to have a path out from that LAN2. You might not want that in some cases so makes me think that it may not be done by default when you set up LAN2.

EDIT TO ADD:

I just realized that part of the confusion here is in the use of the term gateway. I'm using it generically as the defined path in/out of a network, not as the "G" in USG (that being your box). Yes, you have one USG. You can have multiple (generic) network gateways within and multiple places where those gateways may be defined.

See your image from earlier where it says "Default Gateway: 192.168.2.1." THAT is the gateway that I'm talking about.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

I understand...

Your 192.168.1.0 network has 192.168.1.1 (your router) as the gateway for all devices on the 192.168.1.0 subnet.

Your router on 192.168.1.1has a gateway set up to the Internet (whatever IP that gets assigned and routed to your ISP).

So you have a valid path (gateway) for devices with 192.168.1.x addresses to get out to the Internet via 192.168.1.1 -> ISP.

As it is now, your 192.168.2.0 subnet points to 192.168.2.1 as it's gateway. How does 192.168.2.1 get to your ISP?

As above, that needs to be defined in some way, either by going through LAN1 or by setting up some direct access to your ISP from LAN2. I don't know how that works on the Ubiquiti box. But it does need to work in some way in order to have a path out from that LAN2. You might not want that in some cases so makes me think that it may not be done by default when you set up LAN2.

EDIT TO ADD:

I just realized that part of the confusion here is in the use of the term gateway. I'm using it generically as the defined path in/out of a network, not as the "G" in USG (that being your box). Yes, you have one USG. You can have multiple (generic) network gateways within and multiple places where those gateways may be defined.

See your image from earlier where it says "Default Gateway: 192.168.2.1." THAT is the gateway that I'm talking about.

I really appreciate your help, buddy. Try watching this video ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSwvFFZSJkE&t=216s This is what I followed to set this up.

 

[Mike A.]

OK, that does tell me a few things...

First, as he shows in being able to ping the Pi on 10.0.0.x from the 192.168.1.x computer and as he says directly @ about 1:30 in the video, the USG sets up by default to pass traffic across the two subnets. So you shouldn't have to do anything to hit a device on 192.168.1.x from a device on 192.168.2.x and vice versa. (Which is a little surprising to me as default behavior but whatever...)

So that means that you should be able to point the Default Gateway for LAN2 (in the set up page shown in your image) to 192.168.1.1 and have a path in/out to the WAN. I'd think at least unless that's further restricted in some way. There may well be some other better way to provide separate direct access to the WAN from LAN2. Don't know.

What that also means though is that your two subnets aren't really separated. They're being routed across to one another internally. You likely can ping the NVR on 192.168.2.whatever from a device on LAN1 with a 192.168.1.x address (and back if the NVR has some network diagnostics you can use) and access the web interface on the NVR from the 192.168.1.x side.

Just going by what he shows there anyway assuming no other variances.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

OK, that does tell me a few things...

First, as he shows in being able to ping the Pi on 10.0.0.x from the 192.168.1.x computer and as he says directly @ about 1:30 in the video, the USG sets up by default to pass traffic across the two subnets. So you shouldn't have to do anything to hit a device on 192.168.1.x from a device on 192.168.2.x and vice versa. (Which is a little surprising to me as default behavior but whatever...)

So that means that you should be able to point the Default Gateway for LAN2 (in the set up page shown in your image) to 192.168.1.1 and have a path in/out to the WAN. I'd think at least unless that's further restricted in some way. There may well be some other better way to provide separate direct access to the WAN from LAN2. Don't know.

What that also means though is that your two subnets aren't really separated. They're being routed across to one another internally. You likely can ping the NVR on 192.168.2.whatever from a device on LAN1 with a 192.168.1.x address (and back if the NVR has some network diagnostics you can use) and access the web interface on the NVR from the 192.168.1.x side.

Just going by what he shows there anyway assuming no other variances.

ok - playing with this, I have now made the NVR 192.168.2.6... when I attempt to ping that from my computer on 198.168.1.xxx, it has no ping. I'm assuming the NVR is not truly pulling a IP then?

 

[Mike A.]

Yeah, that's not what that video shows. But it is more what I'd expect.

If you changed the IP on the NVR itself to 192.168.2.6 then it should have that IP. (Assuming no conflicts etc., which wouldn't seem to be the case.)

How are you changing the IP on the NVR? Changing the IP on some other device to access it and then switching that back?

Do you have some other device that you can get on the LAN2 side with a 192.168.2.x address to try pinging from that? That should ping (obviously).

Then you'd have to figure out why it isn't behaving as in the video where he shows it setting up to route between the two subnets by default.

shrug I don't know man. Really need someone with better experience with the USG/Ubiquiti. I'm sure they could get up and running relatively easily.

 

[vandyman]

Make sure that you are not using "Link Aggregation". Basically, Link Aggregation is when you parallel Lan 1 and Lan 2 together to one device.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

What I'm not understanding is - When I choose DHCP - I restart the USG & NVR. Normally, the NVR would pick up a new IP. however, It just stays on 0.0.0.0 - shouldn't it assign an IP? What is the problem?

 

[Mike A.]

If you have (1) the DHCP server running on the LAN2 interface of the USG and it's working (you could try some other device pulling a DHCP address on LAN2 to test); and (2) DHCP selected as the IP assignment mode on the NVR, then, yes, it should pick up an address from the LAN2 DHCP server.

You're kind of into the weeds of multiple subnets on the USG here now and away from your original subject. Maybe try a new post with a title specific to setting up two networks on the USG. Someone who knows the Ubiquiti stuff may see that better than the title of this thread.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

If you have (1) the DHCP server running on the LAN2 interface of the USG and it's working (you could try some other device pulling a DHCP address on LAN2 to test); and (2) DHCP selected as the IP assignment mode on the NVR, then, yes, it should pick up an address from the LAN2 DHCP server.

You're kind of into the weeds of multiple subnets on the USG here now and away from your original subject. Maybe try a new post with a title specific to setting up two networks on the USG. Someone who knows the Ubiquiti stuff may see that better than the title of this thread.

This is wayyyy over my head. I almost think I should just call a networking guy to come figure this out.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

and.. all of this is for nothing... right now, my internet speed is 10MBPS on WIFI. This isn't a ME problem, this is a comcast problem.

 

[Mike A.]

This is wayyyy over my head. I almost think I should just call a networking guy to come figure this out.

Naaaa... You can get it. Just need a little guidance. I know what needs to be done, I just don't know how to tell you to do it on the USG.

I'm sure that somebody here can help get you up and running one way or another depending on what you want to do. They may not see it under this title though.

 

[biggen]

So just to clarify, if you plug in the NVR then your wifi speeds are poor (10Mbps) but if you unplug the NVR they are 200Mbps+? And this is repeatable? You can repeat this test over and over again within a 5 minute period and the results are what I described?

 

[CastleSurveillance]

So just to clarify, if you plug in the NVR then your wifi speeds are poor (10Mbps) but if you unplug the NVR they are 200Mbps+? And this is repeatable? You can repeat this test over and over again within a 5 minute period and the results are what I described?

Yes. Numerous times this happened yesterday.

However, right now my WiFi speed is down to 5MBPS standing directly under a ubiquiti AP. I’m paying for a gig plan. And the NVR is not hooked to the network.

What’s the chances I got a faulty modem from arris? Is this more likely to be a Comcast problem? Or a modem problem?

Speeds read 300-400 MBPS when Plugged directly into the back of the modem. However - I cannot get my modem to assign an IP to a computer unless I reboot the modem. Therefore, when speeds creep as low as right now - I can’t just plug straight into the back of the modem and test if this is an issue with throughput from Comcast.

Just rebooted modem - now speeds are 82 MB not standing near the AP.

 

[biggen]

This whole thing reeks of a poorly setup wireless network since your wireless speeds are bouncing around but you get consistent speeds on a hardline. Who setup your wireless? Was channel separation done properly since you are running three APs? Was output power limited and turned down on those three APs to reduce their coverage footprint keep clients from "holding on" to a farther away AP than one directly next to you (this is ALWAYS a problem if using multiple APs)? Was a site scan done to make sure those APs are on different channels from your neighbors to make sure you aren't getting interference from them?

If you installed your APs and left everything on "auto" then that is probably a large part of this problem.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

This whole thing reeks of a poorly setup wireless network since your wireless speeds are bouncing around but you get consistent speeds on a hardline. Who setup your wireless? Was channel separation done properly since you are running three APs? Was output power limited and turned down on those three APs to reduce their coverage footprint keep clients from "holding on" to a farther away AP than one directly next to you (this is ALWAYS a problem if using multiple APs)? Was a site scan done to make sure those APs are on different channels from your neighbors to make sure you aren't getting interference from them?

If you installed your APs and left everything on "auto" then that is probably a large part of this problem.

Well, touché. I am a trunk slammer that installed this myself. But please keep in mind, none of these issues existed prior to the upgrade to gig internet.

I’d love it if you could help me optimize my network - as I don’t think it’s any real surprise, I don’t really know what I’m doing.

I could possibly set up a zoom call and share my screen?

 

[Flintstone61]

My Arris cable modem's (SBG10 AC1600) Wifi isnt spectacular either. I have ( don't quote me) like 60 or 65Mbit Xfinity service....My old Linksys router (EA6350 AC1200) shows better test speeds talking to my Dell wifi N card. ( like maximum 58-53Mbps) whereas the Arris runs from 20-40Mbps over wifi. on ethernet they match. but not wifi.
My internet providers 2 year introductory plan expired and the price jumped to $84...So i bagged the xfinity modem, and got an Arris SBG10 from Amazon to forego the monthly $14.xx cable modem fee.
Most of my home internet connections have always had some flavor of router behind the modem.

on the Wan side....my conspiracy thoery...
Sometimes I wonder if Comcast prioritizes packets from diff applications in diff hierarchies.

 

[biggen]

Well, touché. I am a trunk slammer that installed this myself. But please keep in mind, none of these issues existed prior to the upgrade to gig internet.

I’d love it if you could help me optimize my network - as I don’t think it’s any real surprise, I don’t really know what I’m doing.

I could possibly set up a zoom call and share my screen?

I don't have an answer on why plugging/unplugging your DVR causes a wifi speed change. To be clear, it should not unless your DVR is also wireless or your DVR begins downloading something from the internet as soon as you plug it in and that saturates your WAN link. Its a mystery honestly, but what is not a mystery is that you do have some wifi setup issues since you aren't getting consistent speeds per your tests.

I'm working all this weekend but can give you some tips:

• You should do a site scan and see what channels are being used in your area. If you are out in the country away from neighbors, then you probably have a very clean spectrum. If you are in an apartment or crowded city, your spectrum will be very congested. You can download an app on your phone that will scan wifi channels and show you what surrounding APs on running on. You can also do a RF scan from the unifi controller. You want to choose channels that don't conflict with your neighbors as best as possible. See here: UniFi - RF Scan: Suggested Channels Feature
• You need to make sure that each AP is setup on non-overlapping channels. For 2.4Ghz with 20Mhz wide channels those are channels 1, 6, 11. For 5Ghz, there are no channels that overlap at 20Mhz. However, you probably are running 40Mhz or greater width channels widths at 5Ghz and some of which will overlap. See here for an in depth explanation: Channel Planning Best Practices. The bottom line is you need to make sure you choose your channels. Don't let the controller dictate the channels on "auto". Set them yourself. I run 80Mhz wide channels at 5ghz in the DFS band which are very clean. That gives me ~400+Mbps one way speeds if I'm sitting under the AP. That is more than my WAN link can provide.
• You also need to limit the RF output power of your APs. I have no idea how large your house is but I see you have 3 APs. I can tell you that in my modest 1600sqft house, a single AP covers the entire inside of my home and the front/backyard. In other words, a single AP covers a lot of area. What happens with wireless clients is that once they associate with an AP, they will "hold on" to that AP even when the signal is shit (e.g. -75dbm+). The worse the signal becomes for the client, the more the client has to retransmit and the slower the connection becomes. Wifi is a shared medium. If you have one client connected at 10Mbps, then ALL your clients are effected and that one slow clients drags down everyone. That is because only one client can transmit at once so a slower client has to finish up what its doing before a faster client can do anything (WAVE 2 devices mitigate this but that is another story) You need to turn down the RF output power of those APs so they don't have overlapping coverage. If you are moving through your house you want your phone/device to lose the connection faster with with further AP and pickup the nearest AP sooner. That way you are guaranteed to be connected to the AP with the highest signal strength. See here for more information: The Ars Technica semi-scientific guide to Wi-Fi Access Point placement

Wifi is more than slapping APs up on the ceiling. It takes proper planning. You will get it figured out with some weekend reading.

 

[CastleSurveillance]

Comcast came out this morning and replaced the exterior line to my house. Problem solved.

 

[bigredfish]

Good to hear!
Still doesnt exlain the NVR effect on the network, unless you're using P2P