if the issues are isolated to physical areas, the internet package isnt the problem.

so in that cases, mesh routers may be an option that works.

dont set any PVID, or leave it on 1.

no i didnt indent to highlight that portion. just the first sentence.

Does this make sense?

not really.

Are there any consequences I am not anticipating? Are there any performance considerations?

your IP scanners are gonna run a lot slower…other than that no. large networks are usually a symptom of a larger issue, but not a problem in and of itself. If for example you have 50 devices, putting them on a /24 or /20 or /21 wont likely make a difference. but if you have 1000 devices, deciding to solve that problem by creating a /20 does NOT solve the problem of 1000 devices on the same broadcast domain. but dont conflate those problems with “dont use large network sizes such as /20 or /21”. does that make sense?

I’ll never have 254 devices on this network, let alone 254 on a single subnet. Should I be… “spreading out” the assigned host addresses? Like instead of .1, .2, .3, assign them .8, .16, .32, etc.?

Most people do what you are doing but dont increase the network size just to do so.

for example, instead of 10.0.0.x make it 10.0.0.200-254

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. but its up to you.

half the things you say you need are much better handled on business class equipment.

the only hang up you have there is that wifi on business class is kind of expensive.

i’d suggest something like a mikrotik router and two aruba instant on APs.

it doesnt really matter with the exception of the bandwidth left on the port.

What I would do is plug into the dock and see how it goes, if you dont get the full bandwidth plug directly into the laptop.