Talk:TCP/IP model

message: Someone who speaks English natively really needs to sort this article out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.169.6.124 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of English

message: Please note that with technical material any editing wades into the area of Technical Writing. One way to look at the two versions of this topic is that one is more function-oriented in its description, while the other is more operationally or system-structure oriented. The topic Internet Model might benefit from taking a more formal functional perspective.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.182.97 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-editing

message: On a broader view - sections of the article seem to debate view-points on the subject matter rather than concisely and authoritatively presenting the subject. Also, article spends alot of time on what TCP/IP is NOT, and what the IETF does NOT allow when it mentions them at all. I did not make it to the part where the article explains what TCP/IP is.
::I agree completely that there is too much about how TCP/IP is not OSI, but that is due to the history of the article; it has improved significantly since I first saw it. Unfortunately, many beginners to networking get an introduction from an obsolete view of OSI. For months, I've been removing references that marginally refer to OSI as ISO (i.e., not basic tutorials) understands it, and that also try to force-fit TCP/IP into OSI.  
For example the entire introduction debates whether TCP/IP should be taught as a layered model or not, and says nothing about TCP/IP! (1st who-cares, 2nd why in the intro?)
::I agree completely. The IETF, which, as you point out, is the authority, has architectural documents that argue against strict layering. Just in the last few days, however, there's been an argument about the layering of routing protocols, and, when I offered both authoritative documents and personal experience (in writing some of those documents), what came back was an argument.
I'm ... overstepping the bounds of my knowledge but the intro could go something like this. In fact it probably needs nothing more - anything else should be in a later secton. (Note: this is for example, I can't personally vouch for the factual-accuracy here.)
::Believe me, I feel as frustrated, and, with no false modesty, am speaking within the bounds of my knowledge. There's just as much misinformation, due to marketing usages, of such things as "switch" rather than "bridge", "router", or a combination. There were a few cases where an editor insisted a device worked a given way and that it was an (undefined) "switch" rather than a router inside, because the product name, for historical and marketing reasons, was switch. In one of the cases (Nortel 8600) I was among the designers, and for some Cisco devices, I was involved in the IETF work, the Cisco product testing, and reasonably accurate education on it. 
::There's no simple answer. Personally, I have gotten tired of the never-ending arguments based on incorrect information, and am considering giving up editing networking articles; it's too frustrating. 
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Howard C. Berkowitz - 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 

message: There's no simple answer. Personally, I have gotten tired of the never-ending arguments based on incorrect information, and am considering giving up editing networking articles; it's too frustrating.
::Wow! NO IDEA I was stepping into a firestorm. But maybe glad I did!
::I don't understand what there is to debate here? If we already have a resident expert who helped design this stuff - only another equally ranking EXPERT would be qualified to make real technical arguments. Howard, you should not allow yourself to be bogged down in such meaningless arguments in life. It's not worth it. If you know your stuff, show it, and move on. 
::I'm tempted to say just write the damn article and email it to me. I'll edit and revise it. If someone wants to argue, we will appeal to wikipedia, and it will be out of our hands. 
::I'm not an expert in this topic but I have a sufficient technical background and can be a decent writer when I try. I've taken a sudden interest in this subject matter, and the chance to work with someone who was actually there - it would be cool.
::These topics should not be up for debate. 
::One-Day-Link (Contact-Info)http://codeshare.ulatu.com/index.cfm/view/review/shareID/dec949ec
--64.253.26.36 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP - December 17th, 19:45:00 (EST)(GMT-5) 

message: Pardon me, but what has this to do with the American Department of Defense? I am confused and angry for unspecified reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.227.10.12 (talk • contribs) .
:Perhaps because it was developed by DARPA, which is an agency of the Department of Defence? Bryan 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DoD model 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support.  More familiar title.  Peter O. (Talk) 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The opening paragraph now speaks of the TCP/IP reference model rather than the TCP/IP model - the TCP/IP reference model page is a redirect to TCP/IP model, but, with that change, it sounds as if the primary page should be called "TCP/IP reference model" with "TCP/IP model" being a redirect to it.  Unfortunately, there's no "swap" operation that lets any user exchange a page with a redirect to that page, so, to make that change, we'd have to request another move by an administrator; should we do so? Guy Harris 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google gives more hits on "TCP/IP model", so I reverted my change of the opening paragraph. Instead I added "Internet reference model" as an alternative term. That solves the problem. A move is not necessary. Mange01 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for another move?

message: How is this model an easier fit? Given that the next paragraph tells us there is no single version of the model with different numbers of layers, I fail to see how this makes it an easier fit Markb 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: easier fit for real-world protocols?

message: I may be missing something, but how can RIP, which layers over UDP, be lower in the network stack than UDP?
Also IPSec, ICMP and IGMP are over IP.  ESP is a sibling of TCP/UDP etc.  the only protocols listed there that should be at layer 3 are IP, ARP and RARP (which isn't even strictly it's own protocol, but an extension to ARP), e.g only those protocols that have a frame type number in the Ethernet header..  Layer 4 should be protocols that have their own protocol number in the IP header e.g.: TCP(6), UDP(17), ICMP(1), IGMP, ESP, IPIP, GRE.
L2TP is over IP, and PPTP uses a TCP connection (port 1720) for control channel and GRE for data tunnel, so most definitely isn't at the Data Link Layer below IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.240.118 (talk • contribs) 11:23, June 21, 2007
: With the caveat that I have never seen on an IETF mailing list, or heard in a serious discussion at an IETF meeting, any particular concern about the layer in which a protocol resides, it is the function of a protocol, not how it is encapsulated, which defines the layer at which a protocol resides. Even in formal OSI protocol work, routing protocols are assigned to the network layer by the Management Framework and the OSI Routeing Framework, as layer management protocols.
:L2TP, which most people would say is a layer 2 protocol if they had to assign it, runs over UDP over IP.
:Layering is a guide that doesn't always work with real-protocols. I'm mystified, incidentally, why the graphic shows five rather than four layers for this model. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: layers all wrong?

message: I'm going to be brief.  There are only 4  layers in the TCP/IP model, you have them all right i think besides the network and data link part.  Those two are in the OSI 7 layer model.  The network layer is called the Internet layer in TCP/IP and the physical and data link layers are fused together in the TCP/IP model and are just called the physical layer.  BTW the DoD has everything to do with the TCP/IP model...since they you know...created it...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.90.29 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To clear up some confusion and note a mistake in the content of the TCP/IP model page 

message: The URL for reference 2:
"Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end to end arguments vs. the brave new world,D. Clark & M. Blumenthal, August 2000"
http://www.tprc.org/abstracts00/rethinking.pdf
is a broken link ("Page not found")
There appears to be another copy of this document at the following URL:
http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma/teaching/sp2001/readings/Rethinking_2001.pdf
Can someone confirm that this is correct and fix the link? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.2.6 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was fixed by the time I got to it. Indeterminate (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Give your vote here. Should the TCP/IP model template have four or five layers? And what is the name of the bottom layer in case of four layers? And is it okay to mention both the four and five layer models in wikipedia articles? Mange01 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Four and/or five layers in the TCP/IP model template and wiki articles? 

message: It should be mentioned that the slash means "over".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.50.96 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The slash 

message: I propose to merge the articles TCP/IP model and Internet Protocol Suite. Please keep in mind that this is a suggestion from my side, and that these articles shouldn't be merged if there are good reasons not to do so. 
Here are my reasons for a merge:
*Internet Protocol Suite states: "The Internet Protocol Suite (commonly known as TCP/IP) [...]".
*TCP/IP Model states: "The TCP/IP model, or Internet Protocol Suite, describes a set of [...]".
*Both articles use the same viewpoint (i.e., technical viewpoint) on the topic Internet layering. They both use the same diagrams for explanations.
*Both articles feature a section Layer names and number of layers in the literature with identical content.
If you feel these two articles should not be merged, then - before removing the merge templates from both articles:
*please give reasons on this talk page,
*please improve both articles and explicitly mention in both articles what the differences between TCP/IP model and Internet Protocol Suite are
*please move duplicate content which is irrelevant for one of the articles to the other article
*please give others time to comment on your comments
Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: The content of the article Internet protocol suite is a duplication of the scope of this article, TCP/IP model. Please place discussion in one fo the relevant threads below. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You should use mergeto and mergefrom tags on the two articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I have proposed merging the content of Internet protocol suite  into TCP/IP model. The material appears to be a complete duplication of effort. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You should use mergeto and mergefrom tags on the two articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for merger 

message: ==== Redirect to relevant article ====
My guess is that the original author was intending to create a jump-off point to all the Internet related protocols.  Redirect could be set to
* List of ...
Anyone have a preference? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for final disposition of ''Internet Protocol Suite'' 

message: My guess is that the original author was intending to create a jump-off point to all the Internet related protocols.  Redirect could be set to
* List of ...
Anyone have a preference? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to relevant article 

message: any thoughts here?  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establish new scope for article 

message: Someone like me claim: Whether "Internet protocol suite" can not survive without "TCP/IP model"? It can survive! There is opposition to the merger. Instead merging, it's better the correct information to be put on the correct place. If its about Internet... here, if its about TCP?IP then there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.229.1 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition for merger