Samir

I'd try this first and see what your results are. If only one works, it's definitely a routing issue. This is going to be important too. You'll need to change the ports on at least one of them. In fact, now that I'm looking at it, looks like you have the same udp port for both. Try changing that as well.

How is this remote computer being connected to the dvr?

I used to not like wireless just because wired is always better. Then I discovered this: [edited: link removed to known spammer site] How's that for knocking out your security? Jams ALL signals to the cameras and on your wireless Internet--no cameras, no recordings, nothing! Wired is the only way to go if you're serious about the security. If a group of thieves invested in one of these it could pay for itself with the very first theft job.

Light always helps these situations. If you want it to be stealth, then ir. Otherwise, normal light would work too.

That's so funny. I never would have thought security cameras would even have the firmware to do this. Sounds like something gets borked. If a local test doesn't fix it, it's the camera for sure.

Very strange. Are you able to check the router logs to see if the unit is actually attempting to get an IP address?

True. I definitely wouldn't recommend the cheap route for a setup like this though. I think the class of equipment you're talking about would be better suited for a setup like his.

I learned something new. Everything I've ever seen was maxed out at 16 channels, but it's always been cheap stuff that I've seen.

I'm not too well versed on all the DVRs out there, but I know that most are limited to 16 cameras on a unit, so he's going to need to do something different to get 100 cameras at 4 locations. Sounds like there's some money to throw at a good install, so I'd look for systems specifically designed for something like this.

The IP subnets should be different between the VPN endpoints, so that's good. But this also may be the issue if the software is somehow limited to only seeing cameras on the local subnet. I'm not familiar with the software, but are you able to specify an IP address to connect to?

I'm sure somebody is. Those are a popular firewall as well.

Ahh, this sheds some light on the issue. Seems like the computers can't connect to the cameras over the vpn too, which shouldn't be an issue. Can you ping the cameras on the other side from the viewing computer you want to use? If not, something is stopping the packets in the fortigate from going across the vpn link. This may also be the same thing stopping computers from viewing the cameras from external IPs.

I re-read your problem and let me make sure I understand this correctly. You can view the cameras using the internal/VPN IP address using computers. You cannot view the cameras using the external IP address using computers. You can view the cameras using the external IP address using the apps on your phones. There could be two different things going on. One is that your phones may work because the proper ports are mapped by the apps somehow. And related to that is that the fortigates don't have port fowarding set up so that an incoming desktop request (that doesn't have a way of knowing the ports) will hit the camera(s). I would suggest moving a camera into the fortigate's DMZ for testing, but I know the DMZ on higher end vpn routers like these can be too complicated to help sort out a possible issue.

It's getting there, and a big thank you to everyone who gave ideas in this thread.

So we have a convenient store that definitely has some serious employee theft going on. I want to kill and bury all the employees, but that isn't an option. So we have installed 4 commercial grade analog cameras. Now the problem is where to put the DVR and power source that it can't be accessed? And what about the power source? If they cut the power, dvr is thwarted too. Thoughts?

I really like this idea. Then you can use the ethernet extender products on the telephone wire for the IP cams.

A quick google search yielded two places that have them, one being ebay: https://www.google.com/search?q=American+Dynamics+ADCDH3895TN&client=opera&hs=ezC&rls=en&channel=suggest&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=b4VCVN6iIsSiyAS47oDADw&ved=0CAgQ_AU

Which product from "netsys-direct" u suggesting will handle HD-CVI ? I was mistaken. I thought HDCVI would still be a digital IP technology. In order to use that twisted pair telephone wire, you will need something that can convert and run video over that wire. I've done some quick searches and it seems like there should be a product out there, but it may be a bit of a needle in a haystack.

If it did that, then it is something wrong with the DVR itself. It could be the result of just some failing capacitors (which an electronics repair shop could fix), or it could be something much more. Sorry I can't do any more to help.

If ping is working, then windows firewall is probably blocking the other ports. Shurt off windows firewall for testing purposes and see if you can see them with it off.

If you swapped the cameras, did the problem still stay on the same port? If so, sounds like a DVR issue. I don't think it will be a end-user fix. Someone that fixes electronics may be able to though.

Excellent. Glad to hear you're back up and running.

Really great advice, and since I originally posted this, we've done a lot of what you have mentioned. The problem is the people involved. Thank God they all just quit. Now we have a clean, unadulterated crop of new people that we can put into our systems of checks and balances to keep honest. And all the while, we continue to add more checks and balances.

If your hd-cvi/sdi is really just running over ethernet, then the netsys-direct boxes are your solution. You'd have a solid connection over which to run your camera.

Interesting. Sounds like the SCSI protocol.