Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
It's obvious there's any kind of relationship between router and ip mapping.
No it's really not obvious. I agree with mfurnival. Right now I work in an environment where we have routers from 871s up to 7600s all on the same class A network. Router selection mainly depends on the "work", usually forwarding performance, requirement. Size of the address space usually matters little to nothing. Number of routes matters, but unless you're carrying all Internet routes, most modern L3 devices will easily handle the number of routes you're likely to have.
I need 4096 hosts per subnet.
4k hosts on a subnet is often too many due to broadcast scalability issues. However, much depends on what the hosts are doing and what's the underlying physical network. Usually you should be cautious exceeding a /24. (Sometime even a /24 is too large too.)
.png){kind=link}