VOGONS


First post, by Miphee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I have an IP camera I'd like to use with one of my old computers. The computer would do the recording 24/7.
I tried connecting the camera with a patch cable directly to the computer but it wasn't recognized.
When I connected the camera to my home router it worked fine on the main computer.
I DON'T want to connect the recording computer to the main network, I just want a recorder for my camera.
So would a crosslink UTP cable do the job?

Reply 1 of 13, by AlaricD

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yes, use a crossover cable between them. You can then use arp -a to find the IP for it by looking for the camera's physical address in the list.

Reply 3 of 13, by Miphee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Well, connecting the camera directly to the PC didn't work with either cable.
It doesn't even show up in the arp -a list but when I connect it to the home network then it's right there (192.168.2.70).
I'm only guessing but maybe the camera gets it's address from the router's DHCP server and since the computer isn't on the router's network anymore the camera simply doesn't get an address the camera software can use. It's just a wild guess, I'm not really into these things.
I'll probably need to connect the recorder PC to the network with a wifi dongle to get the router to assign an IP to the camera.

Reply 4 of 13, by konc

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Miphee wrote on 2020-12-22, 09:26:
Well, connecting the camera directly to the PC didn't work with either cable. It doesn't even show up in the arp -a list but whe […]
Show full quote

Well, connecting the camera directly to the PC didn't work with either cable.
It doesn't even show up in the arp -a list but when I connect it to the home network then it's right there (192.168.2.70).
I'm only guessing but maybe the camera gets it's address from the router's DHCP server and since the computer isn't on the router's network anymore the camera simply doesn't get an address the camera software can use. It's just a wild guess, I'm not really into these things.
I'll probably need to connect the recorder PC to the network with a wifi dongle to get the router to assign an IP to the camera.

See if you can assign a static ip to the camera (by connecting it to your router where it's visible and accessing its settings/configuration). Most probably yes but maybe this one is getting an ip only through dhcp.
If you can, assign one for a lan subnet 192.168... or 10.0... and assign an ip of the same subnet statically to the PC (since it's not connected to your lan/router it won't have a valid ip either)
That should do it.

Reply 5 of 13, by Miphee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Unfortunately it didn't work, this camera has no configuration interface. It's entirely dependent on the DHCP server.

Reply 6 of 13, by Oetker

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Well then the solution is to run a DHCP server on your PC. For example tftpd32 is simple to use.

Reply 7 of 13, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

If your router or switch supports it you could setup a vlan and plug the camera into the port where that vlan is assigned. You could even configure the switch or router as a dhcp server if it supports it.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Make your games work offline

Reply 8 of 13, by Miphee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I appreciate your help but it's way beyond my abilities.
I'll buy a 8 channel recorder instead.

Reply 9 of 13, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

For future reference, most modern network cards have a feature called auto MDI-X which negotiates physical link by switching rx and tx pins as necessary. It's only required on one side of a two way link to function.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 10 of 13, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-12-25, 22:33:

For future reference, most modern network cards have a feature called auto MDI-X which negotiates physical link by switching rx and tx pins as necessary. It's only required on one side of a two way link to function.

Indeed, practically all Gigabit and faster cards have auto MDI-X , so even cards from 15 years ago or more will usually have that functionality (pretty sure that the 3C940 in my P4P800 did) .

Reply 11 of 13, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
darry wrote on 2020-12-25, 22:49:
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-12-25, 22:33:

For future reference, most modern network cards have a feature called auto MDI-X which negotiates physical link by switching rx and tx pins as necessary. It's only required on one side of a two way link to function.

Indeed, practically all Gigabit and faster cards have auto MDI-X , so even cards from 15 years ago or more will usually have that functionality (pretty sure that the 3C940 in my P4P800 did) .

It's actually part of the 1000baseT specification for operation below gigabit speeds.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 12 of 13, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-12-27, 21:14:
darry wrote on 2020-12-25, 22:49:
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-12-25, 22:33:

For future reference, most modern network cards have a feature called auto MDI-X which negotiates physical link by switching rx and tx pins as necessary. It's only required on one side of a two way link to function.

Indeed, practically all Gigabit and faster cards have auto MDI-X , so even cards from 15 years ago or more will usually have that functionality (pretty sure that the 3C940 in my P4P800 did) .

It's actually part of the 1000baseT specification for operation below gigabit speeds.

Correct me if wrong, but I seem to remember it being part of the spec, but optional to implement . Though, AFAICR, practically everything NIC ASIC vendor ended up implementing it .

Reply 13 of 13, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
darry wrote on 2020-12-27, 22:48:

Correct me if wrong, but I seem to remember it being part of the spec, but optional to implement . Though, AFAICR, practically everything NIC ASIC vendor ended up implementing it .

You're correct, although 1000baseT requires a full transceiver on each pin so I can't see any cost savings in excluding auto MDI-X. I guess it's possible someone may have left it out, though.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder