On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 8:20 PM James Knott via talk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2023-04-29 17:48, Scott Allen wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 at 17:39, James Knott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's only true because people have learned a lot of bad habits with IPv4. > > No, it's because IPv4 addresses are annotated as x.x.x.x > > Sticking with class size masks makes it easy to separate the network > > address part from the device address part. > > > > But then we get to the situation that led to the question in this > thread, where people think the available addresses depends on which > address range they're working with. As long as the subnet size fits > within the allocated space, there is no problem. However it is better > to think of address space in terms of need. For most, that would be a > /24, as is commonly provided. It makes absolutely no difference whether > that /24 is in the 192.168.0.0 /16 or 10.0.0.0 /8 blocks. If you really > need more, then just think of subnet mask size. >
This sounds like a reasonable solution until you actually set up the router. On 192.168.0.0 - - - - well I haven't found a way to talk directly to more than 254 devices - - - - or have you? Now if you want to blow a lot of money on routers you could have a router for each of the 253 addresses in 192.168.a.x (the "a" section) - - - then you would need one more router to manage all the other routers - - - - which to me seems rather redundant power hungry and not worth my time. Regards --- Post to this mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
