Hikvision DS-7108SN/P NVR same subnet as cameras issue

[neilyboy]

Have a question on configuration of this guy. I am having issues with keeping the nvr on the same subnet as the cameras (is this even possible).
My goal was to keep the cameras on my same internal subnet so I can possibly access them with my vera pro (home automation) hardware at a later time.

I have a fairly simple setup I am running a ZyXEL GS1900-24 switch which is handing out 192.168.1.xxx (from my sophos server - 192.168.1.1).
I have the 7108SN/P configured for 192.168.1.15.
I am using the PoE off of the 7108 to power the cameras. I can plug into the lan ports on the back of the 7108 and gain access to the cameras using SADP and finding them with their 192.168.254.xxx address. I can login to them via the web and force them to use say 192.168.1.16.
I then lose the ability for the NVR to connect to them once I change them to be on the same subnet as the NVR.

So I am assuming that the NVR is running dhcp of its own and I am not able to run both the mgmt side of the NVR and utilize the power over ethernet ports off the back of the nvr to allow my dhcp server to assign address'

I guess what I am getting at is for this to work I assume I will have to purchase a separate poe switch which I will plug the cameras into then back into my ZyXEL switch and ditch using the ports on the nvr itself. Is there any other way around this or am I going about setting this up the wrong way?

In the end I would like the cameras to be accessible to my vera pro so I could possibly tie them into my home automation setup (when I get there)..

Any suggestions are much appreciated!
Neil

 

[alastairstevenson]

So I am assuming that the NVR is running dhcp of its own and I am not able to run both the mgmt side of the NVR and utilize the power over ethernet ports off the back of the nvr to allow my dhcp server to assign address'

Not so much DHCP as 2 distinct interfaces - each assigned to a different IP segment.
If you try to set both to be on the same IP address range, the Linux kernel routing will be invalid. And your PoE cameras will not be accessible.
It is possible to access the cameras on the PoE segment directly from the LAN - and not using the 'Virtual Host' facility, rather using a consequence of it being enabled. Though I do have a suspicion that your NVR may not support this facility.
I've posted lots on this topic - even recently.

As you seem to be network savvy - maybe try this as an experiment.
But it does require that either Virtual Host is available and enabled, or that you enable ip_forward (not to be confused with port forwarding) in the Linux kernel network config, which would need telnet access to do so.
So - assuming this is available - pick one of the PoE connected cameras, say 192.168.254.10, and with SADP and your cable to a spare PoE port, set the camera default gateway to 192.168.254.1 Don't change the camera IP address.
Re-connect your PC to the LAN.
On either your PC on a temporary basis, or better, on your network gateway/router, add a private static route for network 192.168.254.0/24 via gateway 192.168.1.15 (your NVR LAN port IP address).

At this point the camera on 192.168.254.10 should be directly accessible from devices on the LAN that use as default gateway your gateway/router.
Ping it, tracert to it, point the browser at it. All should work OK.

 

[neilyboy]

Not so much DHCP as 2 distinct interfaces - each assigned to a different IP segment.
If you try to set both to be on the same IP address range, the Linux kernel routing will be invalid. And your PoE cameras will not be accessible.
It is possible to access the cameras on the PoE segment directly from the LAN - and not using the 'Virtual Host' facility, rather using a consequence of it being enabled. Though I do have a suspicion that your NVR may not support this facility.
I've posted lots on this topic - even recently.

As you seem to be network savvy - maybe try this as an experiment.
But it does require that either Virtual Host is available and enabled, or that you enable ip_forward (not to be confused with port forwarding) in the Linux kernel network config, which would need telnet access to do so.
So - assuming this is available - pick one of the PoE connected cameras, say 192.168.254.10, and with SADP and your cable to a spare PoE port, set the camera default gateway to 192.168.254.1 Don't change the camera IP address.
Re-connect your PC to the LAN.
On either your PC on a temporary basis, or better, on your network gateway/router, add a private static route for network 192.168.254.0/24 via gateway 192.168.1.15 (your NVR LAN port IP address).

At this point the camera on 192.168.254.10 should be directly accessible from devices on the LAN that use as default gateway your gateway/router.
Ping it, tracert to it, point the browser at it. All should work OK.

I was thinking about this route while driving around today.. I am pretty sure I can get this to work with the sophos box... I was thinking of creating a vlan on the zyxel and throwing a connection from the swtich to the lan port but figured that may create some form of a loop but eh.. thanks for the info I will look into this and see where I can go with it.
Take care buddy,
Neil

 

[alastairstevenson]

A recent example:
https://www.ipcamtalk.com/showthread.php/9562-How-do-I-configure-Firefox-Linux-VLC-to-work?p=86157&viewfull=1#post86157

 

[neilyboy]

Bummer I'm not able to telnet to my nvr nor does it have a virtual host option that I am seeing. I am running with whoslookings 3.13 firmware. Is there a way to enable telnet on this guy?
Thanks again
Neil

 

[alastairstevenson]

Well that's a pity - it's a neat way to get access.
Virtual host or telnet availability is down to the version of firmware.

 

[neilyboy]

I'll look to see if it's possible to downgrade. Otherwise I'm guessing I could find another newer firmware with the virtual hosts option fingers crossed.
Neil

 

[neilyboy]

eh.. i do no want to brick this dang thing so I think ill just buy a couple of poe switches.. hopefully that will resolve my issue.
Neil