@mobb, according to the manual you can assign the port(s) of the EAP-Wall models to a (one!) VLAN, yes.

Boriy wrote
1. In other words, that said STP and FTP should be used in such places like Factory. The only big electrical thing that we have in our building is electrical shield (100kv) in each floor.

2. We have Cat 6 with 10Gb/s speed (within 100meters / 328 foot) and each room has max speed of 100mb/s in local network (EAP-225 Wall).

3. Does it mean, that Switch can handle 56Gb/s transfer data at one time ?

4. If we have 6 Switches in each floor that would be 175Mb/s per Switch, 

1. I would have asked them whether they have ever heard about system noise and alien crosstalk characteristics of 250 MHz CAT.6 cables and what they would recommend to avoid such crosstalking in a cable duct or in a patch panel. Crosstalk is usually caused by undesired capacitive, inductive, or conductive coupling and is a significant issue in structured cabling and communication systems. Such conductive couplings will be increased by each connector/plug and, btw, by patch panels.

When I did start with networking 40 years ago, we had bit rates from 300 bit/s to 9,600 bit/s over RS232C serial lines in local networks and remote networks connected together using acoustic couplers. The error rate over unshielded cable for 9,600 bit/s was around 1 bit failure every few minutes, while with shielded cables it was around 1 bit per 30 minutes IIRC.

2. CAT.6 is a legacy cable specification which reduces max. length to 55m when used for 10GBASE-T. We already discussed this point. For 100m lengths you need CAT.6A, which is characterized to 500 MHz and thus has an improved alien crosstalk specification compared to CAT.6.

If you prepare for a 10GBASE-T network and use CAT.6 UTP cables, just go ahead. I will not further comment on this.

3. Yes. 56 Gbit/s is the required switching capacity for a 28-port switch's internal backplane to serve fully loaded 28 Gigabit ports (2 Gbit/s x 28 = 56 Gbit/s).

4. No. The bandwidth to each of the 6 switches is the bandwidth of the link between the access and the core switch. If you use one Gigabit cable the bandwidth to each switch is 1 Gbit/s in send and receive direction (that's 2 Gbit/s total).

As for the NVR/camera requirements I have no expertise and can't tell you why their cams must be connected to an Internet router. I have no idea why their NVR requires routing, just ask them (ask why, not whether their NVR needs routing and why it should happen on an Internet router, they should be able to explain). In my opinion, a NVR just needs Internet access for remote access to the cameras, but that does not mean that you have to put the whole load of the CCTV network onto an Internet router when you have the alternative to switch the internal traffic.

Usually, a »32-channel NVR« just means that it has 32 direct RJ45 jacks for connecting up to 32 cams directly with the NVR. Of course this reduces load from the CCTV network compared to a single cable connection from the NVR to a switch which serves 32 cams.

But when I see topologies like the following, it hits my head on the tabletop (it's the WRT54 router that makes me despair of today's IT experts): https://www.getscw.com/images/32-ADM-Diagram.png

@Boriy, what do you want to prove with these chat logs? That your experts have little clue of crosstalk, EMI and structured cabling?

It's not about power cables.

Of course you need to separate power cables from data cables. This is a matter of course!

But this measure alone will not eliminate alien crosstalking on UTP cables (and even not EMI!).

Alien crosstalk is defined as:

Unwanted signal coupling from one balanced twisted-pair component, channel, or permanent link to another.
Since alien crosstalk is only caused by differential (or balanced) signal coupling, alien crosstalk is not adversely impacted by common mode noise (e.g. noise from motors, transformers, or florescent lights) that is present in the environment.

Alien crosstalk is specified by current Standards as a power sum parameter for components and cabling to approximate the energy present when all cabling pairs are energized. High power sum alien crosstalk levels can compromise the operation of the 10GBASE-T application by significantly reducing expected signal-to-noise (SNR) margins, thus potentially causing re-transmissions or even auto-negotiation in the network equipment to a lower Ethernet speed.

I often experience auto-negotiation to 100 Mbit/s in Gigabit networks when using unshielded CAT.6 flat cables, even very short cables and those are not in a cable duct, not bundled and not crossing power lines. This happens with JetStream switches as well as with routers. The TP-Link forum is full of examples where people experience this type of interference, for example, see this recent thread, post #9 ff.

Now, what will you do if you have deployed 20 cables in a duct and 7 of them cause reduction to 100 Mbit/s Fast Ethernet? How does your patch panel help to troubleshoot this issue? Rhetorical question only, a patch panel won't help at all. You will have to replace those 7 cables.

Conclusion from a white paper discussing alien crosstalk mitigation techniques:

The characterization of alien crosstalk in the installed category 6/class E cabling plant is the main focus of the TIA TSB-155-A and ISO/IEC TR 24750 technical bulletins. Because the alien crosstalk in category 6/class E UTP cabling is extremely dependent upon installation practices (e.g. bundling, the use of tie-wraps, and pathway fill), performance values were developed based on an assumed "typical" worst case installation environment. This analysis led to the conclusion that 10GBASE-T should operate over category 6/class E UTP channel lengths of up to 37 meters and may operate over category 6/class E UTP channel lengths of 37 to 55 meters depending upon the actual alien crosstalk levels present. Since shielded cabling designs significantly reduce alien crosstalk, these length limitations are not applicable to F/UTP (foil-shielded cable) or S/FTP (braid-shielded cable) installations.

Electromagnetical interference is commonly caused by nearby motors (e.g. in elevators), generators, air conditioners, and even fluorescent lights, printers and RF equipment (surprise, surprise, you have plenty of RF equipment around!).

And now I present to you the biggest electromagnetic disturbances that none of your experts thought of: the high-energy atmospheric discharges during a thunderstorm that can even induce high voltage in your unshielded outdoor cables and are capable of killing your entire network with a single lightning strike which is 1km away (I have once experienced such a situation and I know them not only by hearsay).

IIRC you have outdoor EAPs at the summer/winter terraces, right? Connected to indoor switches, I assume? Using cables without proper grounding and shielding, really?

And your experts want to tell you there is no EMI in a hotel, only in factories?

I would insist that the cable supplier who makes such claims sign a liability declaration. I guarantee you, he will then withdraw the claim very quickly, especially when you tell him about the outdoor installation.

Excuse my rant, but the gibberish of your experts annoys me enormously.

Here a short report from the category »Theory meets Reality«:

Customer moves into a newly built building, 20 rooms, 20 EAPs. Electrician runs cables from patch panel in server room to each of the 20 rooms and mounts EAPs on the ceilings. Cables are away from power lines (theoretically), structured cabling, shielded cables, one more jacket with a standard patch cable to connect the EAP.

When adopting the EAPs yesterday the following happened:

EAP on port 6 negotiates 100 Mbit/s instead of 1 Gbit/s. Something unknown interferes with signals on this cable.

mobb wrote

Is VLAN tagging supported on each individual port of the EAP230/EAP235 supported? Including from central Omada SDN management software?

@mobb, @Boriy, please see this new post/thread regarding VLANs of additional ports on EAPs. It's about EAP245 and I did answer your question regarding VLANs according to the documentation for EAP-Wall models, but it could be that VLAN mapping for additional ports might not work as expected as I learned now for EAP245 (and well, I bought the EAP for connection of a second device to a specific VLAN).