On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:58 AM Antony Stone
<Antony.Stone@???> wrote:
>
> On Monday 05 June 2023 at 18:42:02, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
>
> > I think that 192.160.x.x showed up in this thread as a typo.
> > Certainly hasn't been in any of my emails!!!!!
>
> No, it isn't a typo.
>
> Ralph Ronnquist mentioned it (correctly) in his second posting, because
> 192.168.0.0/12 is invalid. As soon as the netmask gets shortened from 16, you
> have to make sure that the second byte of the network address matches.
>
> Basically, it's all down to binary notation.
>
> > > 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.?
>
> "Is not equal to".
>
> > 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?
>
> You have to take into account the ARP table inside switches (and wireless
> access points, if you're even thinking about doing any of this without
> cables).
>
> The ARP table matches up MAC addresses (which are the hardware-unique thing
> about any networkable device) and the IP address the device has been assigned
> at the time.
>
> You *might* find enterprise (ie: expensive) switches which can handle this many
> ARP table entries, but there's no way a wireless access point is going to be
> able to do that.
>

Hmmm - - - - absolutely NO intention of using wireless communications.
Wired all the way!!!

Thanks for the ideas!