Are you PTP670 <–> AP3000 <–> F300 | pole 1 | F300 <–> F300 <–> |pole 2| F300 <–> F300 |pole 3| etc… etc… ?
If so why have the 3000 AP ? Also, how far apart are the poles ? I assume each pole is LOS to the next pole ?
No reason it shouldn’t work but if the AP3000 only has 1 client (the F300 on the first pole) then you could just use another F300 instead of the 3000AP.
Also, don’t know if there is other hardware besides camera on the poles but it sounds like you are going to need a switch at each pole also. If you use ePMP 1000 connectorized or the original integrated you can very possibly do away with the switch at each pole because those radios have a 2nd Ethernet port.
As Brubble said, no point in using a e3k if your not going to have multiple SMs and just place a bunch of links in series.
The only problem as described will be the amount of data the video streams generate and how it adds up on its way to the ptp670. Also the added latency per link will make some cameras more lagy.
If you can, only place one SM per pole and link back to the e3k with a good sector antenna. KPP has a good quad port one thats supposed to be for a Mimosa but works very well for us. If you have to go pole to pole, try to keep the number of hops down, a good rule is the 3 hop rule, this will make sure that you do not start a ptp sprawl that will not by syncronized and will start tripping over itself.
If your budget allows, use e3kL radios for remote point APs and keep the system sync’d, this way you can also use low gain, wide angle sectors to reach several poles that are being blinded to the main AP. Distance/foilage permitting, this will allow you to use force300-16 radios instead of force300-25s and use lower power which mitigates self interference. This is also not an ideal design as it places a lot of traffic on the main e3k AP that should be on dedicated ptp links but is doable since you specified that this was for surveillance cameras.