Lack of static IP for viewing cameras over the web.

[jcummins]

I have Verizon internet service via router...expensive....and limited to 20GB. I may very well switch, in the search of a different ISP, but I live far enough out in the country, choices are really limited.

I've recently installed and IP system. Open the proper ports in the router...didn't work. Verizon has them blocked, reason they use dynamic IP and that keeps changing. They will provide static IP at a $500 cost, which I will not do. That reason right there is why I researching changing ISP.

Do I have any options other than to get a different ISP that will give me a static IP? It looks like this NVR has IP server abilities, although I'd prefer to keep it very simple. But from some light reading it appears services out there that can manage the dynamic IP number and tunnel through to an IP server. ??? Need ideas, since I WILL do something.

 

[alphawave7]

Check out:
https://www.duckdns.org/

 

[fenderman]

I believe your problem is not static vs dynamic but rather that verizon does not give you a routeable external ip address. This is common with mobile/satellite/wisp providers...
See
https://www.ipcamtalk.com/showthread.php/3808-Remote-viewing-my-ip-cam?p=33317&viewfull=1#post33317

 

[GSL]

I had to go through the same thing several months ago...I've worked out a hardware only solution to provide public IPs to cameras on Verizon 4G LTE. I've got a dozen locations and it works quite well...so I am thinking of making it a service.

 

[jcummins]

I believe your problem is not static vs dynamic but rather that verizon does not give you a routeable external ip address. This is common with mobile/satellite/wisp providers...
See
https://www.ipcamtalk.com/showthread.php/3808-Remote-viewing-my-ip-cam?p=33317&viewfull=1#post33317

I got to thinking about this. I asked Verizon for an static IP and when they said $500, I basically told them what they could do with that. I should have asked...I have open the port, but the web says it's closed, why is the port blocked?

After thinking about it. I do know my currently assigned address, the ports are open at my router, yet from the web the port is closed. So....how would a dynamic DDNS do any good? I think Fenderman has it right, so I'm screwed with Verizon. Perhaps a static IP would make it routable, but something at Verizon has to change to even make DDNS work.

 

[jcummins]

I got to thinking about this. I asked Verizon for an static IP and when they said $500, I basically told them what they could do with that. I should have asked...I have open the port, but the web says it's closed, why is the port blocked?

After thinking about it. I do know my currently assigned address, the ports are open at my router, yet from the web the port is closed. So....how would a dynamic DDNS do any good? I think Fenderman has it right, so I'm screwed with Verizon. Perhaps a static IP would make it routable, but something at Verizon has to change to even make DDNS work.

Another question how does various support software, similar to team viewer, get aroud the lack of open ports?


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[fenderman]

Another question how does various support software, similar to team viewer, get aroud the lack of open ports?


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

They feed everything though their own remote server sort of like what @bp2008 described in the post I linked above.

 

[GSL]

you want to do everything at the IP layer...anything above that is just another thing to manage. Teamviewer, updates, all points of failure, etc.

 

[alphawave7]

Research ssh and also reverse proxies, might as well become a guru!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[alastairstevenson]

Another question how does various support software, similar to team viewer, get aroud the lack of open ports?

It's an outbound connection from your LAN, you don't need to explicitly allow anything in, the return packets are statefully linked to the initial outbound connection that you established.

 

[alphawave7]

They feed everything though their own remote server sort of like what @bp2008 described in the post I linked above.

It's an outbound connection from your LAN, you don't need to explicitly allow anything in, the return packets are statefully linked to the initial outbound connection that you established.

There are several techniques to perform this duty, called NAT Traversal, which may or my not rely on a remote server:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Establishment

 

[jcummins]

There are several techniques to perform this duty, called NAT Traversal, which may or my not rely on a remote server:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT_traversal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Establishment

For the simple want of viewing home security cameras, can't get that fancy. BUT...hopefully I've found a solution, just not sure how speedy this will be compared to this 4G Verizion LTE service. The good...NO data cap, they will provide a static IP, they said ALL ports will be open, up to me to handle, cost is less . The bad, it is not as fast as Verizon. BUT think I can live with it. AND, opens up some data streaming potential that I couldn't even begin to think about with the data cap on Verizon.

Suppose to be here in a couple of weeks to test signal strength etc, and if that comes up good, they will install.

 

[alphawave7]

For the simple want of viewing home security cameras, can't get that fancy. BUT...hopefully I've found a solution, just not sure how speedy this will be compared to this 4G Verizion LTE service. The good...NO data cap, they will provide a static IP, they said ALL ports will be open, up to me to handle, cost is less . The bad, it is not as fast as Verizon. BUT think I can live with it. AND, opens up some data streaming potential that I couldn't even begin to think about with the data cap on Verizon.

Suppose to be here in a couple of weeks to test signal strength etc, and if that comes up good, they will install.

Excellent! WISP? Cost?

 

[jcummins]

I'm paying $90 a month now, will be $69.