9th camera to Hikvision DS-7616NI-E2/8P

[charles2859]

Greetings,

I am having problem adding the 9th camera to the NVR. What I have done is connecting #8 and #9 cameras to a POE switch and then connect POE switch to NVR's port-8. I then manually add #8 and #9 cameras into NVR, as they are not detectable. NVR is able to connect with #8 but #9 is "not reachable". I know both cameras are working when each is directly connected. That makes me believe the issue is at the NVR side?

How I add camera is per the prompt -- typing in IP address, choose HIKVISION camera, Channel 1, user and password. (Typing these using my memory as I am not in front of NVR at the moment)


Greatly appreciate expert's advice on:

1) What others areas shall I look into?
2) Shall all cameras use fixed IP or DHCP?

 

[hook3m]

That is not going to work. Unplug the POE switch from Port 8 and plug one of the cameras into it. Leave camera 9 plugged into the separate POE switch and connect it to the LAN side of the NVR. You will need to manually assign camera 9 an appropriate IP address, mask and gateway for the LAN side of your network. Then in the NVR manually add the 9th camera using the IP address you assigned to the 9th camera.

 

[blake]

Or purchase a bigger nvr.

 

[hook3m]

Or purchase a bigger nvr.

A 16 channel NVR isn't big enough to support 9 cameras?

 

[charles2859]

Thank you for the quick reply, hook3m.

My understanding on the solution is once done, NVR and 9th camera will be communicated via LAN. Is there a way to avoid that to reduce traffic load on the LAN? One solution that I can come up and still have remote access is using another router so NVR and cameras are under that lan segment. Will that work or there is a better solution.

That is not going to work. Unplug the POE switch from Port 8 and plug one of the cameras into it. Leave camera 9 plugged into the separate POE switch and connect it to the LAN side of the NVR. You will need to manually assign camera 9 an appropriate IP address, mask and gateway for the LAN side of your network. Then in the NVR manually add the 9th camera using the IP address you assigned to the 9th camera.

 

[steve457]

Why don't you just plug cameras #8 and #9 directly into your NVR? That would isolate the camera traffic onto the NVR network segment. I'm not clear on why you are adding a switch into the mix in your example.

 

[blake]

A 16 channel NVR isn't big enough to support 9 cameras?

I thought his nvr was an 8 channel.

 

[steve457]

Ahh, missed the part that it was an 8 channel NVR. In that case, hook3m's suggestion is what I would also recommend. If you want to isolate camera traffic you could look into creating a VLAN, but that is more complex. I have 10 cameras running on my network and do not notice any performance problems.

 

[fenderman]

Thank you for the quick reply, hook3m.
Is there a way to avoid that to reduce traffic load on the LAN? One solution that I can come up and still have remote access is using another router so NVR and cameras are under that lan segment. Will that work or there is a better solution.

If the NVR and additional cameras are connected to the same switch no traffic will pass through the router or rest of your lan.

 

[zero-degrees]

I thought his nvr was an 8 channel.

Thats a 16 channel NVR, but has 8 onboard POE ports - there is no reason to buy a larger NVR, simply follow the above advice about wiring a POE switch to the NVR and taking cameras into the switch.

 

[zero-degrees]

One solution that I can come up and still have remote access is using another router so NVR and cameras are under that lan segment. Will that work or there is a better solution.

Deploying multiple "routers" will cause issues especially with port forwarding/remote access to the NVR. While it can be accomplished it will be a nightmare unless you are very comfortable with IP addressing and routing as well as port forwarding obviously. There are some topics in other threads discussing how to isolate your IP Video traffic, you may want to research those. Keep in mind all your cameras plugged directly into your NVR are already isolated and there video is not moving through your network, so if you're only adding a few cameras I don't believe you need to have any concern unless you are connecting a ton of additional cameras to your network and the additional IP cameras are on separate hardware devices within your network - router, switch, switch, etc...

 

[charles2859]

Thank you all for the replies and suggestions.

As I will need remote access, adding #9 camera to the network via POE switch, and with VLAN option seems to be the best. Thank you all again and will report back the final setup.

 

[Defender666]

Do you mean remote access through browser to each cam, you cannot use the onboard poe then because it blocks camera access because of different sub net.
You will only get remote access thrrough the NVR and just get image.

The other option if you just need remote image
For this you just need to set up the camera to appropriate subnet 192.168.254.xxx then you can also use POE Switch behind onboard POE Switch. Do not use automatic set to manual but chose hikvision protocol. Then get image through NVR mobile port.

 

[zero-degrees]

Do you mean remote access through browser to each cam, you cannot use the onboard poe then because it blocks camera access because of different sub net.
You will only get remote access thrrough the NVR and just get the image

Totally inaccurate sir! These NVR's have a feature called "virtual host", once this is enabled then you can access the POE port cameras on the NVR directly to setup and custom config them as well as pull there RTSP stream etc... Once enabled you simply go to your NVR IP - example - 193.168.1.50 then add :650xx for the port. Port 5/camera 5 is: 192.168.1.50:65005

however, none of that is what the OP was asking for, I'm simply clearing up your inaccurate statement above.

 

[Defender666]

That is not totally inaccurate. I know about this feature but still the cameras are in different sub net. Which results they have for instance 192.168.254.xxx IP and not 192.168.1.xxx like the NVR. It is completely different think then the virtual host feature.

 

[alastairstevenson]

Do you mean remote access through browser to each cam, you cannot use the onboard poe then because it blocks camera access because of different sub net.
You will only get remote access thrrough the NVR and just get image.

Just to clarify and correct any misunderstandings - especially where security is concerned -
With 'Virtual Host' active (or with kernel 'IP forwarding' [not to be confused with Port Forwarding] active), there is already full access to cameras that are connected to the PoE ports of a DS-7616N-E2/8P NVR.
See the example below. The NVR LAN IP address is 192.168.1.210, 192.168.1.1 is the LAN gateway/router, the device on 192.168.254.12 is a PoE-connected camera.

P:\>ping 192.168.254.12
Pinging 192.168.254.12 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.254.12: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.254.12: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.254.12: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.254.12: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=63
Ping statistics for 192.168.254.12:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms
P:\>tracert 192.168.254.12
Tracing route to 192.168.254.12 over a maximum of 30 hops
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.210
  3     4 ms     3 ms     1 ms  192.168.254.12
Trace complete.
P:\>

 

[zero-degrees]

That is not totally inaccurate. I know about this feature but still the cameras are in different sub net. Which results they have for instance 192.168.254.xxx IP and not 192.168.1.xxx like the NVR. It is completely different think then the virtual host feature.

Okay, either you and I are on a different page or not understanding one another... What you stated above DOES NOT MATTER when an IP camera is connected directly back to the NVR with POE ports. The NVR routes directly to the port/camera based on the virtual host information.

For example NVR's I configure on private 10.x.x.x networks carry a 10.xxxxx IP address. For example to access the NVR on network the NVR will be 10.0.0.50 however ALL the cameras hold IP address in the 192.168.188.X range... So now all the PC's and Remote machines ON the private network are 10.x.x.x IP addresses and the Cameras are assigned a 192.168.188.X address...

Now based on your comments above I should not be able to access those cameras because they reside on a totally different IP/subnet... However, with virtual host enabled and using hte 10.0.0.50:65001 the NVR knows what you are trying to accomplish and will route you directly to that 1st port on the NVR regardless of its IP address.

Now, like I said before, we are either trying to explain two different topics but from your statements above and again appear inaccurate! My point is, even though the NVR assigns different subnets/ip addresses, or what ever - with virtual host enabled the NVR still allows you to directly route to each individual camera connected to the NVR which you stated is not possible using built in POE ports...

Once again, some one speaking out of context and misleading people with false information.

 

[alastairstevenson]

My point is, even though the NVR assigns different subnets/ip addresses, or what ever - with virtual host enabled the NVR still allows you to directly route to each individual camera connected to the NVR which you stated is not possible using built in POE ports...

@zero-degrees is correct with the above statement.

Just to hopefully try to explain a bit more - as this is a topic where incorrect information is sometimes posted -
There are several ways to access PoE-connected cameras from NVR LAN port addresses.
A couple of them can be achieved logically without extra wiring.

With 'Virtual Host' active the NVR very conveniently provides a 'NAT' (or more strictly a 'PAT', port address translation) facility which maps the PoE camera IP address and port to the NVR LAN address and mapped port, helpfully shown as the column of links on the right of the 'Camera Management' pages. By clicking on the link with a browser, the camera web GUI can be accessed.

In order to be able to do this, the Linux kernel in the NVR has to be able to forward packets internally between the NVR LAN interface and the NVR PoE interface.
This is a standard Linux feature that by default is not enabled.
Enabling Virtual Host implicitly enables this feature.

Which brings us to the next way that PoE cameras can be accessed, without having to go via the NVR web GUI.
With the NVR Linux kernel now enabled to forward packets internally between the NVR LAN interface and the NVR PoE interface, a network packet directed to the NVR LAN interface, addressed to a PoE connected camera will be forwarded to the NVR PoE interface and will reach the camera.
But how does the networking in the PC etc on the LAN know to direct packets destined for PoE connected cameras to the NVR LAN interface?
Initially it doesn't, as the PoE segment uses a foreign, non-LAN IP address, so the packet is sent to the LAN default gateway, usually the LAN router, to deal with.
And the LAN router also treats the packet as destined for a foreign address, so sends it out to the internet.
The cameras appear to be inaccessible from the LAN, as the traffic never reaches them.
But - that default behaviour can be changed by telling the router that all packets destined for the NVR PoE segment IP addresses should be directed to the NVR LAN address.
This is called 'adding a static route' to the router. Most routers have this facility.

When this has been done, cameras on the PoE ports of an NVR can be directly accessed by any device on the LAN that uses the router as the default gateway.
Not just the camera web GUI as per the Virtual Host, but all types of access including RTSP, the media port, SSH, telnet etc.

A bit lengthy - but I hope that made some sense of what can be quite a confusing concept.