Thank you for your thoughts!

instead of user A’s devices being 10.0.1.x make it 10.0.0.10-19, 20-29 for the next user, 30-39 etc. . . . then the DHCP range make 100-199 . . . that way you still have equal “tidiness” without needing a humongous network size.

This is what I started with before realizing I could also assign the third octet. I’m glad to hear that my original plan would have worked just fine (if slightly uglier to my eye… but I’ll choose function over aesthetics).

Some clarifications about what you quoted… I originally wrote:

Should I be… “spreading out” the assigned host addresses? Like instead of .1, .2, .3, assign them .8, .16, .32, etc.?

Did you intend to highlight this portion? And if so, could you please explain further?

You are looking for a binary yes/no answer, but the reality is that only you can answer this question.

worth it

“worth it” is subjective…

• We don’t know how your ISP is pricing their Mbps plans
• We don’t know what your budget constraints are
  • What do you consider to be cheap?
  • What do you consider to be reasonably affordable?
  • What do you consider to be expensive?

Would gig Internet really help that out?

This depends on whether your equipment can make use of the 900-1200 Mbps fiber in

Most devices are on WiFi and seem to get about 50mb to 100mb speed

Is this causing any problems?

I have 300Mbps Verizon FiOS in the northeastern United States. This is plenty for my needs:

• dozens to thousands of search engine queries per day; general web browsing
• constantly streaming of YouTube video
• video calls
• no gaming
• occasional TV streaming
• twelve total devices, not all concurrently used (although AdGuard Home tells me that they all make multiple DNS queries every minute)

I would say that most people over-estimate their internet bandwidth needs.