DJMartin wrote:
The firmware that Ubiquiti releases is specific for their models, therefore, if there were limitations, then the firmware should not allow for those limits to be exceeded. IE /24 /20 /16
Based on the failure of some devices not acquiring an IP in the 10.x.x.x subnet, wether static or dynamic, leads me to wonder about the thoroughness of firmware testing by Ubiquiti.
Software running under the hood is identical on all the routers, and really, the ER-X is a faster (general-purpose) CPU under the hood. Trouble comes in when you have to dedicate RAM / "disk" storage to the DHCP leases -- there's not all that much to work with, so a /16 may be the largest reasonable block assuming you're trying to assign addresses out of it (if it's all supernet work, go for that /8 ...)
As far as your devices not picking up an IP address in your /24, that's more a problem of those devices. As
edit -- bear in mind that the people having "problems" with the 10.x.x.x subnet are running networks that're quite a but larger in scope than the paltry 254 usable addresses that you're trying to assign -- the only mention of trouble was using larger than a /16 -- which already has 65,534 possible addresses in the pool...