Talk:Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer m (Talk:OSI model seven layers moved to Talk:OSI 7-layer model: more common name used for many years at Bell Laboratories) |
imported>Pat Palmer (adding comments from old page) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| by = [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 16:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | | by = [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 16:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Section on why standards are needed== | |||
I reworked the language somewhat. While it can debated whether or not the previous language represents a neutral point of view, it certain comes across as polemical in tone. The same point can be made without focusing on motives. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 13:48, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
:If you have more ideas for this thing please go ahead and add them... I'm trying to come up with more content. Maybe something on the old hardware and protocols, etc? Hmm. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:58, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Well, it is certainly true that internetworking requires running the same layer 3/4 protocols over very different transports. The Imtermet would hardly have become as ubiquitous as it is if IP applications didn't run over Ethernet, DSL, cable and dialup lines. I remember a number of years ago that a system administrator at what was then my ISP had frame relay set up to his house! How many people are going to do that so they can have Internet access? [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 14:13, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Meaning of switch == | == Meaning of switch == |
Revision as of 20:29, 12 May 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Computers Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Greg Woodhouse 16:40, 9 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Section on why standards are needed
I reworked the language somewhat. While it can debated whether or not the previous language represents a neutral point of view, it certain comes across as polemical in tone. The same point can be made without focusing on motives. Greg Woodhouse 13:48, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
- If you have more ideas for this thing please go ahead and add them... I'm trying to come up with more content. Maybe something on the old hardware and protocols, etc? Hmm. --Eric M Gearhart 13:58, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Well, it is certainly true that internetworking requires running the same layer 3/4 protocols over very different transports. The Imtermet would hardly have become as ubiquitous as it is if IP applications didn't run over Ethernet, DSL, cable and dialup lines. I remember a number of years ago that a system administrator at what was then my ISP had frame relay set up to his house! How many people are going to do that so they can have Internet access? Greg Woodhouse 14:13, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Meaning of switch
I changed the link back from electronic switch, because in the context of computer networks, "switch" has a different meaning. An electronic switch could be an electronic component like a transistor or a latch, but a network switch is a computing device, albeit of a special type. Both layer 2 devices (such as bridges) and layer 3 devices (such as routers) have been called switches. Radia Perlman (the inventor of the spanning tree bridge) somewhat sarcastically said that switch is a word meaning "fast" (see her book, Interconnections for a detailed, and readable, treatment). In fact, the term switch really has less to do with how the device works, but with how it is used. ATM switches are technically layer 3 devices, but are used in much the same way as layer 2 switches. "Fast Ethernet" (100baseT and 1000baseT) is switched, even though Ethernet/802.3 is a layer 2 protocol. (Remember that 10baseT does not require switching.) Greg Woodhouse 11:36, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
- Greg, I have modified the "switch" link on this article to say "network switch" (which I think is the same as a router anyway). The plain old "switch" link is redirected to the Electronic switch. There are many links to "switch" from various computer articles that really do need to go to Electronic switch. So we need a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to make one.Pat Palmer 11:53, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
- Not necessarily. If you have to physical networks connected by a switch and then use traceroute (tracert on Windows) to path from a host on one segment to one on the other, you won't see the switch. However, if they're connected by a router, you will see the router. On the other hands, there are contexts where switches and routers are pretty much the same thing. Part of the problem, and something that really needs to be addressed in this article, is that the OSI model is not always a perfect fit for network technology, so thee can be a certain degree of arbitrariness in the assignment of network devices to OSI layers. Greg Woodhouse 12:03, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
- Computers Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Computers Advanced Articles
- Computers Nonstub Articles
- Computers Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Computers Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Computers Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Computers Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Computers External Articles
- Computers Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Computers Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup