On Jun 05, 2023, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
> 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!!!!!

192.160.0.0/12 is the actual network definition when otherwise talking
about the host "192.168.0.0/12".


> > > [...]
> > > 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.?

"not equal". It's common notation in many programming languages.


> >
> > 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?

I'd probably split it up smaller, just for ease of maintenance and some
modularity. There's a lot that can go on "in the background" when it
comes to ethernet networks.

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860