On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Didier Kryn wrote:

> Le 06/06/2023 à 04:02, Dan Purgert via Dng a écrit :
> >
> > 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.

From the OP's description of his proposed setup, I agree.

Interestingly IPv6 over ethernet was designed to make it easier for one lan
to have most hosts - it uses multicast instead of broadcast so it does
depend on switches being able handle multicast reasonably inelligently.
In this case I suppose it could be possible to run the setup using IPv6
link local addresses :-)