On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 8:43 AM Dan Purgert <dan@???> wrote:
>
> On Jun 04, 2023, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 6:24 PM Ralph Ronnquist <rrq@???> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > If you go for 172.16.x.x you probably mean 172.16.x.x/12 (or netmask
> > > 255.120.0.0).. i.e. IP addresses that are all same in the 12 highest
> > > bits, and allowing for 20 bits to host enumeration (plus "broadcast"
> > > and "network").
> > >
> > > That IP space is similar to 192.168.0.0/16 in being an agreed
> > > "private" address space, although 16 times larger address space.
> >
> > So if I wanted I could have 192.168.0.0/12 and I have the same address
> > space as in 172.16.x.x/12?
>
> No, since you're only allowed to use 192.168.0.0/16. The rest of
> 192.160.0.0/12 is publicly routable (and leased out) address space.

I think that 192.160.x.x showed up in this thread as a typo.
Certainly hasn't been in any of my emails!!!!!
>
> There are only three (3) ranged allotted in the RFC 1918 ("private")
> address space:
>
> - 10.0.0.0/8 (10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255)
> - 172.16.0.0/12 (172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255)
> - 192.168.0.0/16 (192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255)
>
> > Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - - is there anything else that might be different
> > between using 192.168.x.x and 172.16.x.x ?
>
> The networks themselves (172.17 != 192.168 afterall ;), and total
> available subnets (for example, there are only 256 /24s in
> 192.168.0.0/16 vs 4240 in 172.16.0.0.12).

If only I knew or could find out what '!=' meant.?
>
> Note that it is advisable to keep networks down to ABOUT 1000 hosts or
> so (a /22), as network overhead can cause problems after that (although,
> it also depends on how much actual traffic you need to move).
>

Hmmmmm - - - - so if I were monitoring some 3k sensors/points and the
actual volume of information isn't that high (high for me is say 10 bytes every
0.5 seconds per sensor with most being much lower - - - say 6 to 8 bytes
every 2 to 5 minutes) this still can be controlled through 'one' point?

TIA