RE: TCP/IP Terms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Mastaka / Bill,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> In terms of design, if you do TCP/IP *only* design, the TCP/IP model
is
>> probably enough. However, the Internet is not only TCP/IP. Carriers,
for
>> example, don't care much if their fiber transports TCP/IP or IPX or
>> voice or video or GigE.

> Masataka Ohta wrote:
> No.
> Anything at or above transport layer is a layer internal to
> end systems and has nothing to do with networking or network
> protocols. Seperation of transport and application layers is
> a overkill for a best effort network, though it may help
> standardize the internal design of end systems such that
> anything supported by kernel belong the transport layer. You
> can check the reality that application and transport areas
> of IETF are now almost identical, though, historically,
> trasnsport area was working on protocols likely to be
> implemented in kernel. In addition, defining a thin transport
> layer may be useful over a hypothetical port-number-aware
> network such as that supporting RSVP. However, forcibly
> defining a session-layer-aware network is a layer violation.

I don't disagree for the upper part of the model, but all the examples I
have used in this thread were about the lower part of the model.


>> Michel Py wrote:
>> And, there are complex multi-protocol networks that a) don't
>> use only TCP/IP and b) would not be able to use the TCP/IP
>> model anyway because it's too simple.

> Bill Cunnigham wrote:
> * Would not be able to use TCP/IP.*
> How can that be changed?

If I had to design a model it would be:

    Michel's           TCP/IP                OSI
      model             model               model
+--------------+  +---------------+  +---+--------------+
!              !  !               !  ! 7 ! Application  !
!              !  !               !  +---+--------------+
! Application  !  ! Application   !  ! 6 ! Presentation !
!              !  !               !  +---+--------------+
!              !  !               !  ! 5 ! Session      !
+--------------+  +---------------+  +---+--------------+
! Transport    !  ! Transport     !  ! 4 ! Transport    !
+--------------+  +---------------+  +---+--------------+
! Network      !  ! Internet      !  ! 3 ! Network      !
+--------------+  +---------------+  +---+------+-------+
! Logical Link !  !               !  !   ! Data ! LLC   !
+--------------+  ! Network       !  ! 2 ! Link +-------+
! Media Access !  ! Interface     !  !   !      ! MAC   !
+--------------+  !               !  +---+------+-------+
! Physical     !  !               !  ! 1 ! Physical     !
+--------------+  +---------------+  +---+--------------+

I understand that people that have used the TCP/IP model don't care much
of what's inside the Network Interface layer, but there is a bunch of
stuff there that could use layering. That's why, short of having my very
own model drawn above, I keep using the OSI one for
explanatory/educational purposes.

Michel.


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]