On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 1:38 PM Antony Stone
<Antony.Stone@???> wrote:
>
> On Monday 05 June 2023 at 20:30:19, Jim Jackson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2023, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> > > Should I switch my present router from 192.168.1.1 to my chosen
> > > 172.16.x.x (I'm running on dd-wrt)?
> >
> > Do you want your sensors (assumed ethernet connected) to use the router and
> > be able to access / be accessed from the internet?
> >
> > If yes then do it.
>
> Why do you recommend changing to 172.16.0.0/16 instead of using
> 192.168.0.0/16?
>

> >     How are existing machines network configured?

> >

> >       If they are manually configured you will have give them numbers in
> >       the new network range. If you let your router do DHCP, then you
> >       should be ok.

> >

> >       How are the sensors network configured? If using DHCP, can your DHCP
> >       server manage that numbers of DHCP clients? You may have to configure
> >       your routers DHCP server to have a big enough range of addresses to
> >       hand out.

>
> I think that should be trivial compared to the requirements for switches
> and/or wireless access points to handle this many devices & addresses.
>
> > If no then it would be better to use the existing 192.168.1.0 network for
> > those machines that need internet access, and use the bigger 172.16.x.x
> > addresses for the sensors and the machine they talk to.
>
> I don't see the advantage of over-complicating things in this way.
>
> > You can run several networks on the same phyical LAN. You will have to put
> > the machine the sensors talk to on this network as well. A linux network
> > interface has have several addresses.
>
Did some digging earlier today - - - switches - - - 10+1 and 16+1 are
sorta cheap but not as
cheap as the 16 port switches. What I found fascinating was that 48+2
(or maybe 4) port
switches are say $500 yet the 24+1 port switches are just over a $100
- - - - makes sense
at this point to have 24+1 port switches.

(Why 24+1 port switches - - - individual sensors + most other things on the lan
function just fine at 100 MBit/sec (if not even lower) - - then
collecting the 24 ports
together and sending to 'management/oversight' at I GBit/sec.)

Thanking all the contributors for my education upgrade - - - (grin!).