Template talk:Internet protocol suite

message: The OSPF protocol should be in layer 3 (up one layer)!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.45.166 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TCP/IP does not have a layer 3, as is clearly seen from the stack. Please don't conflate OSI jargon with TCP/IP. Kbrose (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  layer for OSPF 

message: Why shouldn't DHCPv6 be listed, while NDP and even ICMPv6 are. Also, there would be just 4 additional characters: (v6) - Piulin (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DHCPv6 SHOULD be listed 2603:6000:B000:29A2:70F3:FDA:377D:704C (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  DHCPv6 

message: So because it's controversial and we can't decide where to put it, now it's not in this template at all?  That seems like a classic worst-of-both-worlds compromise, for a protocol as important as ARP! —scs (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neither? 

message: I have re-added ARP, placing it at the Internet layer.
I don't care so much where it goes, as long as it's listed.
To my mind, it belongs wherever NDP is, since they're analogous.
But:
I don't believe we have to get the placement exactly right.
I believe this template's primary purpose is to list the primary Internet protocols, and ARP is certainly one of those.
I don't believe this template has a mandate to definitively categorize protocols as to layer.
The impossibility of categorizing ARP perfectly is not, I believe, a reason to banish it from this template.
If it's unacceptable to list ARP here but to have it categorized imperfectly, I believe we have two options:
* put an asterisk next to it, with a footnote that it's not actually a part of whatever level we put it in, or
* create an actual "level 2.5" heading to put it and NDP in.
But, again, leaving it out entirely is not an option.  ARP is undeniably a core Internet protocol, and it belongs in this template. —scs (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure)  Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:IPstack →  – Templates should (and generally are) named by what they are (i.e. a meaningful title in clear, non-obfuscated English). Redirects allow the use of shortcuts for editors who cannot remember (or don't want to type) the full name of the template—like  redirects to , for instance. I tried fixing this but was reverted. Additionally,  attempted to at least add a space between the words "IP" and "stack" twice, back in 2010 and 2011. All three attempts to improve the clarity of the title were promptly reverted by an apparent owner (just look at the history) with the reasons all being similar to "not necessary". This is classic owner behavior #3, and I find that kind of thing to be extremely detrimental to the forward progress of this collaborative project. Again, a redirect results from the move, so the whole "name...is short and easy to use" argument is moot. "Name has been stable for a long time" is owner behavior #2.
I propose that we move this to  because  as well as the common name used by the main article on this subject. Furthermore, most of the TCP/IP stack (as it is more commonly called than "IPstack") is built on top of IP and not part of that protocol itself. — voidxor 20:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Entirely agree. --Zac67 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 January 2022