2 routers-one for IP Surveillance, 2nd for PC/Laptio use?

[rfeyer]

I've searched through multiple helpful threads, but do not believe they are relevant to my quest:
I have several IP Surveillance cameras as well as several PC's / Laptops.
In order to reduce traffic loss from the IP's, would it make sense to use a second router for them? If so, how would I set this up?
Keeping in mind that I would like to access the IP cameras from all PC's/Laptops.
Also, due to ignorance I am a little scared of the Active X needed for the Surveillance cameras as far as internet connection - could the second router prevent harm to the information kept on the other PC's/ Laptops?
TY in advance,
Rainer

 

[USAFRet]

What cameras, and what routers?

I too have a 4 camera dedicated system. Even though it is Linux based, connecting to it remotely is via ActiveX. Idiots.

 

[rfeyer]

the cameras are Hikvision DS-2CD2032 and the Routers are frontier Gigasets with wireless

I don't understand why it has to be Active X, makes no sense to me. I am planning to get BlueIris as the software to place on one of my older PC's running eiher Win7 or I could use Linux, but am a newbie at that

 

[train_wreck]

well, unless you are paying your ISP for more than 1 public IP Address, everything will eventually need to be NATted to 1 address. If you could find/build a router that could provide you with multiple internal subnets going out on 1 WAN port, that might work if all you're trying to do is separate them within the LAN.

even then, with more than 1 IP from your ISP, you are still using the same overall connection (i.e., your multiple addresses, if you choose to buy more from your ISP, still go out on 1 cable/DSL modem), so to really separate out your traffic you would have to pay for 2 different connections, and they would likely need to be from different ISPs.

btw, my cameras have have both activex and a java-based client. unfortunately, the java apps aren't signed, and oracle's Windows runtime is getting ready to stop running unsigned apps.

 

[rfeyer]

train_wreck - thank you for the info,and understood.
I was more thining of the internal (LAN ) traffic rather than the external ( Web ) traffic - would you think that can be done with 2 routers?

 

[train_wreck]

yeah it could - you would set up 1 normally, then a second with the WAN port connected to any LAN port of the first, of course making sure that the routers use differing internal subnet numbering. Behind that 2nd router, you connect your cams - that way, people on the main LAN would not be able to access the cams. Ideally, though, you would get a router that could give you multiple subnets to work with, and then firewall them off appropriately.

 

[Recycled]

In order to reduce traffic loss from the IP's, would it make sense to use a second router for them? If so, how would I set this up?

Are the IP cameras are monitored from inside Your network, or from somewhere over the internet?


If they are monitored from inside Your network, here's how you could do it: You could connect one internet gateway / router to the internet, and connect all your PCs and laptops to that. Then, connect the surveillance router's internet port to one of the ports a PC would connect to on your other router. Then, connect all Your IP surveillance gear to the surveillance router.

Q: Do you need it?
A: Probably not.

A second router would free up bandwidth for use in other areas, but is only useful if You are trying to use more bandwidth than Your router can supply. You are not asking for more bandwidth that one router can supply.

You have (x4) 3 MegaPixel cameras recording (at most) 30FPS.
Each one uses (at most) 23Mb/s of bandwidth. That's (at most) 92Mb/s of bandwidth for 4 cameras.

I'm going to guess that all of Your PCs and Laptops aggregate an average of less than 10Mb/s of internet activity, and never pass 100Mb/s. (It would be hard to find an internet connection faster than 100Mb/s.)

Therefore, your total usage is, at most: 192Mb/s.

A cheap gigabit router will handle 1,000Mb/s of traffic. (More expensive routers will handle 1,000Mb/s on each of several connections at once.) Your routers sound cheap, (no offense.)

Conclusion: 1,000Mb/s > 192Mb/s, so there's no shortage of bandwidth. You do NOT need a second router.

--Andy

 

[rfeyer]

Andy,

when you put it in this way, numbers and all, it certainly seems that I will not have to worry.
Yesterday noted that I will need to get a POE switch for the new cameras as well, so connecting this to the router would most likely do the same thing, keep traffic local until the info is needed from the Router traffic.

Thank you all for your explanations!

 

[Recycled]

Just remember, there are 100Mb/s switches and there are 1000Mb/s switches. That is the most important thing.

Next, there are cheap home switches and there are professional managed switches. That's the second most important thing.

--Andy

P.S. Can I ask You to please pick the best answer?

 

[rfeyer]

best answer picked - also thanks for the add on (managed switch)