Le 06/06/2023 à 04:02, Dan Purgert via Dng a écrit :
> On Jun 05, 2023, Steve Litt wrote:
>> Dan Purgert via Dng said on Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:44:57 -0400
>>
>>
>>> 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).
>> I didn't know this. If I had, let's say, 20,000 hosts, could I get
>> around the problem you mention by using routers between networks of
>> 1000 hosts per network?
> Bear in mind I'm focusing somewhat on general "business grade" type
> stuff that costs in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars
> (say 4 figures max), but ... Yep, that's pretty much how the general
> internet works today.
>
> Taking 192.168.0.0/16 as an example; we could have one central router
> talking to say 8 routers that each control a /19.
>
> In turn, these 8 intermediate routers each talk to 8 more routers with
> the /22s for "client access".
>
> For the sake of discussion, the main router and the first-level
> intermediates are 10.1.1.x, and the second layer for "client access" are
> 172.16.x.y.
>
> SO Central Router (10.1.1.254) trying to get to 192.168.122.34 would see that it needs
> to talk to 10.1.1.4 (as 122 is in the fourth grouping of 32 -->
> 0,32,64,96)... and then 10.1.1.4 talks to 172.16.96.7 (since 120 is the
> seventh grouping of 4 --> 96,100,104,108,112,116,120)
>
    Didn't you forget that all these sensors don't speak to each other,
but they instead only speak with one single host. Given that, I'm not
sure breaking down the traffic into many local loops would bring much
improvement.

--     Didier