Oh, I’ve no doubt it would work perfectly. At one time I used to peripatetic techie primary schools for the council and one of the bigger ones used that subnet because of the number of clients they had. I just don’t see the point here.
To put a bit of context on that for other readers. Pre-internet days, IPv4 was originally envisaged for use by government, military and big corporates. The addressing system was built around simple patterns to make it easy to work with. Problem was this was very wasteful of addresses. Internet comes along and suddenly there aren’t enough addresses to go round. IPv6 would take years to bring in, as the existing equipment of the day couldn’t cope with it. Two things were proposed to help.
One was “private” addresses. Not private in the security sense but private more in so far as they were internal to your network and so you and your neighbours could all use the same addresses without conflict. 192.168.x.x for the home market. (This is the reason for NAT – Network Address Translation, so your firewall can translate to the single, unique, public address issued to you by the ISP when you send traffic out into the wide world).
The second idea was subnetting – the technique you’ve used here. It was intended for the public addresses and big corporates etc. to make better use of the original, very wasteful, classful addressing system. It does not really serve any purpose using it on top of private addressing. Particularly a class B subnet as you quoted. That actually allows for 1024 host/client addresses. How many domestic homes need that many?
Consequently, I was curious as to why you had picked that. If you just picked it up from someone else, fair enough. As I said, it will work.
