o1bigtenor via Dng said on Sun, 4 Jun 2023 17:08:13 -0500


>So I've been thinking of using a 172.16.x.x network rather than a
>192.168.x.x as it would seem to me that I can easily put over 300
>sensors/systems on a 172.16.x.x system and I would need to be using
>some kind of system of cascading routers to use a 192.168.x.x .

Listening to your future plans, you might have A LOT of nodes later.
Why not switch to 10.0.0.0/16, and later you can reduce the bitmask as
more nodes come online, or you can also have multiple subnets within
10.0.0.0/8? There's no cost to using the private address allocation
with the greatest number of addresses, as far as I know.

SteveT

Steve Litt
Autumn 2022 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
http://www.troubleshooters.com/bookstore/thrive.htm