Posts like this:
Most traffic in a corporate LAN is client to server nowadays, and a router not very well setup rather becomes a bottleneck AND a SPOF. and 200+ clients on a subnet wasn't a real issue 10 years ago and it won't be now, you can still read all the broadcasts with a (non-promisc) tcpdump without it becoming a blur - tiny compared to the bandwidth. And ARP work for the clients should also be no issue nowadays. – rackandboneman May 21 '12 at 19:34
...and this:
If all of you have is 50 clients, then it would not make a difference if the subnet was /8 or /24. Its the same number of clients, same amount of traffic. In any event, subnetting your network is not really based on the number of computers, but the need to segregate the systems based on security requirements, traffic isolation, etc...
...together seem to contradict advice I had been given from a network professional, who told me that my current 10.0.0.0/8 subnet (with about 20 clients and 2 servers all hooked to the same switch) was vulnerable to overloading should a client be compromised by malware, because broadcast traffic would be orders of magnitude higher than, say, on a 192.168.0.0/24 subnet. Is this perhaps what the poster of the above quote was referring to? Or is the advice out of date?
