Talk:Internet protocol suite
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet protocol suite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Scheme vs. protocol
HTTPS (actually https:) is a URI scheme, not a protocol. The scheme describes a different protocol stack that includes SSL or TLS, but the protocol is no different. For that reason, might it be better to keep the distinction clear? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.153.233.240 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 August 2005.
- See Talk:HTTPS Hrvoje Šimić 06:55:44, 2005-09-13 (UTC)
Layers in the Internet Protocol stack
The above captioned section groups a lot of TCP/IP and non TCP/IP protocols in the OSI model. There should be something to identify the TCP/IP protocols from these, especially when the article does not provide a list of TCP/IP protocols anywhere else. RMehra 25 January 2006
Layer names and number of layers in the literature (removed section from article)
I removed the following section because it seemed more confusing than helpful; if you're in a position to explain the relationship between the different models and the Internet protocol suite, and decide which actually belong here, feel free to add it back in. Rusalkii (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am inclined to restore this immediately. It seems a personal aversion to complexity, and complex the history of these protocol suites has been. The table is clearly relevant, as the core of the Internet Protocol Suite is often misrepresented by people trying to merge or squeeze it into other models, mostly related to the OSI model. The table also shows some historical progression of thinking, when shown next to the ARPA model. I do agree that the prose around the table should be improved to provide better context. kbrose (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind the complexity, but presented without context I went down a half-hour rabbit hole trying to even figure out which of these was the internet protocol suite the article is about. I think the table would be very useful with context and worse than useless without it, and I don't yet know enough to add the necessary context. I might try to work on this section this weekend but I likely won't have the time. Rusalkii (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
trying to even figure out which of these was the internet protocol suite the article is about
None of them are. Column 1 is the OSI model, and columns 2-N show mappings between layers in various models developed for the Internet protocol stack to the OSI model. If there were a separate page for those models, separate for the page for the protocols - as there once was - this table would belong there, not here Guy Harris (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind the complexity, but presented without context I went down a half-hour rabbit hole trying to even figure out which of these was the internet protocol suite the article is about. I think the table would be very useful with context and worse than useless without it, and I don't yet know enough to add the necessary context. I might try to work on this section this weekend but I likely won't have the time. Rusalkii (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Restore – Those are the most common layering models that you run across in various standards or literature. The table may be very helpful for anyone trying to correlate those sources. I don't see anything confusing with that. --Zac67 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kbrose: Good job! @all We should also consider reordering the table columns, so the more important ones are on the left. The imho most significant are RFC1122 (topic) and OSI, with Cisco, Tanenbaum and Kurose behind that. Where should be put RFC871 (historical)? --Zac67 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would think the sequence is okay, if the OSI column in first position is moved to the last position. OSI should not be in the middle somewhere, because it is the most detailed and least congruous. At the end it provides the comparison to that world, to which the text book authors do not belong. kbrose (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Layer names and number of layers in the literature
The following table shows various networking models. The number of layers varies between three and seven.
OSI model (ISO/IEC 7498-1:1994[1]) |
Arpanet Reference Model (RFC 871) |
Internet Standard (RFC 1122) |
Internet model (Cisco Academy[2]) |
TCP/IP 5-layer reference model (Kozierok,[3] Comer[4]) |
TCP/IP 5-layer reference model (Tanenbaum[5]) |
TCP/IP protocol suite or Five-layer Internet model (Forouzan,[6] Kurose[7]) |
TCP/IP model (Stallings[8]) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seven layers | Three layers | Four layers | Four layers | Four+one layers | Five layers | Five layers | Five layers |
Application | Application/Process | Application | Application | Application | Application | Application | Application |
Presentation | |||||||
Session | |||||||
Transport | Host-to-host | Transport | Transport | Transport | Transport | Transport | Host-to-host or transport |
Network | Internet | Internetwork | Internet | Internet | Network | Internet | |
Data link | Network interface | Link | Network interface | Data link (Network interface) | Data link | Data link | Network access |
Physical | — | — | — | (Hardware) | Physical | Physical | Physical |
Some of the networking models are from textbooks, which are secondary sources that may conflict with the intent of RFC 1122 and other IETF primary sources.[9]
References
- ^ ISO/IEC 7498-1:1994 Information technology — Open Systems Interconnection — Basic Reference Model: The Basic Model.
- ^ Dye, Mark; McDonald, Rick; Rufi, Antoon (29 October 2007). Network Fundamentals, CCNA Exploration Companion Guide. Cisco Press. ISBN 9780132877435. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Google Books.
- ^ Kozierok, Charles M. (1 January 2005). The TCP/IP Guide: A Comprehensive, Illustrated Internet Protocols Reference. No Starch Press. ISBN 9781593270476. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Google Books.
- ^ Comer, Douglas (1 January 2006). Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, protocols, and architecture. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-187671-6. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Google Books.
- ^ Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1 January 2003). Computer Networks. Prentice Hall PTR. p. 42. ISBN 0-13-066102-3. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Internet Archive.
networks.
- ^ Forouzan, Behrouz A.; Fegan, Sophia Chung (1 August 2003). Data Communications and Networking. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 9780072923544. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Google Books.
- ^ Kurose, James F.; Ross, Keith W. (2008). Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach. ISBN 978-0-321-49770-3.
- ^ Stallings, William (1 January 2007). Data and Computer Communications. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-243310-5. Retrieved 12 September 2016 – via Google Books.
- ^ Bush, R.; Meyer, D., eds. (December 2002). Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and Philosophy. doi:10.17487/RFC3439. RFC 3439.
The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1970s
@Kvng:@Kbrose: Please can you explain your thinking on this? While work on the ARPANET started in the late 1960s, the ARAPNET was a homogeneous network. The design and implementation work at this stage didn't consider internetworking. ARPA's pivot to focus on internetworking happened in the early 1970s, around the time Larry Roberts left to found Telenet, Bob Kahn joined DARPA from BBN and Vint Cerf became involved, first at Standford and later at DARPA. DARPA's change in direction was driven and approved by Stephen Lukasik. The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1970s (i.e. 1973 onwards). However, the article claims or implies this happened in the late 1960s:
The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960s.
I think we can either tweak the sentence to clarify what we mean, or simply remove it because the following sentence introduces the pioneering ARPANET work in the late 1960s. From my perspective, I'm happy with either although I think it would be better to avoid repeating the same point in consecutive sentences. Would you be happy if we delete the above sentence? We can always keep the citation somewhere else. Whizz40 (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the current sentence can be easily misunderstood. How about evolved or even eventually evolved instead of resulted? There were many milestones and not a single, straight line leading to TCP/IP. --Zac67 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a sensible suggestion Zac67. I like the idea. I think the challenge with keeping the sentence with this change is there were other influences on TCP/IP; for example, Louis Pouzin's work on CYCLADES. This section already covers all of this, so I think this sentence would be trying to preempt what we're about to say in the subsequent sentences! Shall we see what others think when they join the discussion? Whizz40 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- How about:
The Internet protocol suite evolved from research and development begun by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960s. After initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969, DARPA started work on a number of other data transmission technologies in the early 1970s.
- Emphasis added for discussion only. Whizz40 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, excellent! --Zac67 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The revert I did was because I wasn't sure the citation supported the change; my edit comment was, "is that what the ref says?" The first sentence of the proposal here is potentially compatible with the existing reference. I'm unable to access that paper so I don't know. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also don't have access to that source. Nonetheless, I think the dates in the proposed replacement above are accurate and the wording is an improvement. Would you be happy if we make that tweak to clarify the opening two sentences of this section? Whizz40 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable changing cited material without someone reviewing the citation. I could be comfortable if there were an alternate citation to support the new statements. ~Kvng (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all, changes made by Kbrose look good to me. Whizz40 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable changing cited material without someone reviewing the citation. I could be comfortable if there were an alternate citation to support the new statements. ~Kvng (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I also don't have access to that source. Nonetheless, I think the dates in the proposed replacement above are accurate and the wording is an improvement. Would you be happy if we make that tweak to clarify the opening two sentences of this section? Whizz40 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Found a relevant quote, Vint Cerf saying "the DARPA [internetworking] effort had been under way since 1973." [1] I'll add this to replace the CN tag in one of the subsequent sentences. Whizz40 (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Intro sentence
"The Internet protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, is a framework for organizing the set of communication protocols used in the Internet and similar computer networks according to functional criteria."
Is it actually used in "the Internet"? Following the logic it's an internet [only] protocol... it not within the Internet.
Are these protocols limited to computer networks? Wouldn't generic "network" of what ever devices? djk44883 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what would make it "Internet-only"; it can be - and, as far as I know, is - used in some networks not connected to the Internet. Nothing requires that IP be used only on networks connected to the Internet.
- In theory - and perhaps in practice - a hardware device not running any software (such as a device using an FPGA) could have an implementation of IP and protocols running atop it, so, even if anything with a conventionally-programmable CPU is deemed to be a "computer", non-"computer" devices could be on the network. Guy Harris (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- in the Internet and similar computer networks pretty much encompasses all use cases. Computer is applied with a wide definition – any device participating in a TCP/IP network requires some computational facilities, so it needs to contain a computer or could be regarded as a computer itself, even if its primary function is something completely different (e.g. TV, streaming audio player, smartphone, washing machine, car, ...). --Zac67 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Intarneat Free TikTok video
TikTok video 202.86.218.67 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- B-Class Computer networking articles
- High-importance Computer networking articles
- B-Class Computer networking articles of High-importance
- All Computer networking articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class Internet articles
- Top-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles