So I guess I must be a leet haxor because of all the businesses I configured for the 172.x space because 192.168.x space was too small and 10.x space was way the hell too big.

wdym too big? That’s what subnetting is for.

I know what subnetting is for. That’s why I know which RFC range to use. I’m talking based on the number of devices and needed groupings, 172 is a good sweet spot where 198.x would be a bit tight and 10.x is complete overkill.

Could you please explain, how 172.x is different “size” than 10.x? Don’t both of those have 255255255 spaces?

Yeah. Here’s a breakdown of the allocations and their sizes:

192.168.0.0/16 - 65,536 addresses 172.16.0.0/12 - 1,048,576 addresses 10.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,216 addresses

Most home applications only need a single /24 (256 addresses) so they are perfectly fine with 192.168.0.0/24, but as you get larger businesses, you don’t use every single address but instead break it out by function so it’s easier to know what is what and to provide growth in each area.