Should I configure my router to deal only with 10 different IPs?

>Should I configure my router to deal only with 10 different IPs?
No.

>It'll be more secure that way?
No.

>More efficient?
No.

>Should I take a time to do this?
No.

>>312220
lul

>>312206
mkfjadbkjfdbhsfkjshdfkjhdskjfhdksjf

>>312226
Something wrong with my computer and this site. ignore my touble shooting attempts.

>>312227
Test.

>>312206
It doesn't matter at all. When your devices talk to each other there's no routing happening, and things like DHCP and NAT take as much as ressources as needed by how many hosts are on the network. Just use a normal /24 (255.255.255.0) netmask.

Also there would be 6 spare IP addresses left, because you can't put 8 devices in a /29 network (minus network and broadcast address, there are only 2^3-1=6 addresses left), and a /28 already gives room for 14 hosts.
I even enlarged my home network to a /23 so I can assign static IPs to the even and dynamic IPs to the odd half.

If you talk about MAC filters, that's mostly placebo and only useful if you're using a Wi-Fi with a very common name (e.g. LINKSYS) to block out devices that confuse your network with their own. You shouldn't do that anyway, because a common name makes cracking your Wi-Fi password slightly easier.

>>312230
>static IPs to the even and dynamic IPs to the odd half
Why you did that? What did you gained doing it?

>a common name makes cracking your Wi-Fi password slightly easier
Easier how? It's just a name. Isn't it?

>>312225
>lul
that anon is right, though

>>312230
But DHCP servers aren't constrained to giving out whole subnets, anon.