On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 8:20 PM James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 2023-04-29 17:48, Scott Allen wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 at 17:39, James Knott <james.knott@jknott.net> 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