Talk:Internet protocol suite/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Which is it, four layers or five?

The article says four. The sidebar says five. Tom NM (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the 'The five-layer TCP/IP model' box ?

There seem to be some inconsistencies in the right-top box showing the TCP/IP model: is 'IP' supposed to be in the application layer, and why is there a lingering opening bracket ? 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

History of TCP/IP v4

It is not clear from the article when TCP/IP V4 was complete. From the article:

...a split into TCP v3 and IP v3 in the spring of 1978, and then stability with TCP/IP v4 — the standard protocol still in use on the Internet today.

Is that 1978 or 1979 or even later? It seems that TCP/IP v4 was being used by 1980.

--66.92.218.124 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote: Four and/or five layers in the TCP/IP model template and wiki articles?

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)

Inaccurate Quote in Subsection Layer Names and Number of Layers

This apparent quote from the RFC is inaccurate: Emphasizing layering as the key driver of architecture is not a feature of the TCP/IP model, but rather of OSI. Much confusion comes from attempts to force OSI-like layering onto an architecture that minimizes their use. The original source RFC does not contain this statement or anything like it. In fact, the OSI model is only mentioned a few times in the RFC and the authors are cautious about NOT drawing an unflattering comparison between the TCP/IP model and the OSI model. I've therefore removed the offending quote and left the reference to the RFC section titles Layering Considered Harmful, which is still germaine to the points being made in this section of the article. Ross Fraser (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OSPF layer position

Someone has misread RFC 2740.

Quote from the rfc, section 1.1. Terminology (page 4):

  Most of the terms used
  both by OSPF and IPv6 have roughly the same meaning (e.g.,
  interfaces). However, there are a few conflicts. IPv6 uses "link"
  similarly to IPv4 OSPF's "subnet" or "network". In this case, we have
  chosen to use IPv6's "link" terminology. "Link" replaces OSPF's
  "subnet" and "network" in most places in this document, although
  OSPF's Network-LSA remains unchanged (and possibly unfortunately, a
  new Link-LSA has also been created).

OSPF is a rounting protocol. It cannot simply 'move' to a lower layer, in any kind of scheme (Internet, OSI, whatever), either logically or in practice.

Just use common sanse people. Routing protocol and routed protocol exist *always* on the same layer! Where IP is, thats where OSPF/IS-IS/RIP is!

IP (routed protocol) is the passive part, OSPF (Routing protocol) is the 'active' part. TOGETHER they make the "Internet" (/network/internetwork) layer!

IPv6 didn't change that.

212.25.76.140 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Layers aren't physical places to go to, they are just interpretations of network functions. What goes into a layer is just a definition of the layer. OSPF does not belong into the Internet Layer, as the protocol is a link state protocol and only operates on the local link (no matter what the encapsulation scheme is), i.e. it does not reach across routers. A border router between two networks maintains distinct routing maps for each area. But OSPF does not route anything, it's IP that does the routing, OSPF just provides the best information to do so. The protocols in the Internet Layer, as the term implies internetworking, do operate across routers and therefor connect networks into an internet. Kbrose (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, OSPF runs over IP. It's protocol 0x59 in either IPv4 (as a Protocol Number) or IPv6 (as a Next Header number). The point is, for a strict layering interpretation, it runs over IP. That does not imply it's a layer 4 protocol in any sense -- it's not a transport protocol. It's just a client of the Network layer. However, IS-IS was mentioned above, and while it is, like OSPF, a link-state routing protocol that supports IP, it runs directly over the link layer with no intervening IP header. The layer it runs over doesn't change the fact that it gathers information to support IP routing/forwarding. And finally, some routing protocols operate over TCP (e.g., BGP). They all facilitate the operation of the IP layer (gathering information necessary to support connectionless forwarding of packets based on their destination address) but are independent of the IP layer. If you drew IS-IS as "inside" the IP layer, you'd be wrong...physically it doesn't use IP packets at all. It is, like all other routing protocols, logically part of the IP layer.

Another point: Routing protocols mostly operate between directly connected neighbors, in the sense that they share the same broadcast LAN, point-to-point or point-to-multipoint connection. However, this is not necessarily a requirement: BGP has multi-hop support. OSPF can have "virtual links" between routers that don't share a common subnet. Tmaufer (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So, let me see if I get what you're all saying - OSPF operates above and under the internet layer at the same time?! If you are to separate the 'path facilities' (IP) to the 'path determination' (routing) than you HAVE TO move all routing protocols to the application layer.

Otherwise it is just a logical mess - in this specific case (OSPF): distinguishing between the date (routing table), date collecting/sharing (Hallo, LSA), the date processing (OSPF algorithm), and the use of the date itself (packet forwarding).

ROUTING is the COLLECTION of the above. If you choose to understand/interpret *routing* simply as 'packet forwarding' all routing protocols (or any other process that create/modify the routing table) MUST exist on the application level.

As it is right now, OSPF spans over several layers.

  they are just interpretations of network functions... as the protocol is a link state protocol and     
  only operates on the local link

I have the distinct feeling that that while writing the above that author misunderstood the network function that is routing, and its complexity. In order to route, in the form modern routers (the physical equipment) do, these devices (assuming there is more then one) needs to share their date, so they can, in turn, process it. This is an inherent part of routing protocols!

To put it in other words, "operates on the local link" should be replaced with "SHARE local link information". In order to "operate", OSPF needs local date ("local link" date), actively maintain it (hallo), SHATE IT, and process the sum of collected date. In the simple form: "operates on the local link" ... INFORMATION.

Clarification: you need to distinguish between the mechanism in which information propagate to the scope of information propagation. The mechanism in which information propagate is, in this case, a single hope; the scope in which the information is propagated is not. A single hope propagation mechanism will propagate information to the entire network, one hope at a time.

Sharing information in this manner, single hope propagation, is how routers share information.

Another clarification: the routing/forwarding table is what makes routing, as we know it today, possible. Packet forwarding use it. Routing protocols update it (in one way or another), that is their entire purpose, their sole reason of existence. It is the (missing) link between _IP_ and _routing protocols_.

One way to make this mess clear is to look at the routing (and forwarding) table as the starting point. IP (packet forwarding) is useless without it (with the exception of static forwarding table); routing protocols are useless without it. Routing, as a whole, in its base, is the routing table, and every function or mechanism that has a strong, direct connection to it must exist on the same logical layer.

This is what I tried to communicate in my original post. This point of view may very well look over simplified, but it does seem however, that the implementation specifics of some routing protocols have managed to confuse some people here, to a point that some replies to my OP imply that _path selection_ is done by the _IP_.

This cannot be more wrong! _Path selection_ is determined by the process that updates the routing/forwarding table, which is, in turn, used by the packet forwarding mechanism. The IP standard (RfC 791 and 2460) is, more then anything else, a detailed specification of the IP header structure and content. Not only that, but from the moment a packet is created, only a few fields in the IP header are changed throughout it lifetime, if at all. So the claim that _path selection_ is done by the _IP_, from a logically point of view is just wrong.

OP 77.126.112.104 (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not label things for the sake of labeling them. Labels sometimes just cause confusion. Routing protocols enable routers to discover each other and exchange information about what they are each connected to and this information, when processed, facilitates packet forwarding. What layer the routing protocol operates at is completely irrelevant (or at most academic). This is even more academic in modern MPLS-based routing topologies that have an underlying structure that is independent of what the routers see at the IP layer. The concepts of path selection and neighbor discovery and routing information sharing are completely generalized from what traditional IP routing would indicate.

Just as ARP is an Ethernet client (as is IPv4) and they work together (IPv4 can't work without ARP, or statically defined IP-to-MAC-address mappings), routing protocols provide information so the IP layer can do its job. Note that IPv6 uses ICMPv6 in lieu of ARP. It's a self-bootstrapping protocol. The job of mapping IPv6 addresses to MAC addresses is still being performed, though now it's happening *inside* the IPv6 layer instead of by a parallel helper protocol.

Tmaufer (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"What layer the routing protocol operates at is completely irrelevant" - No, but I'll meet you half way through, you think routing protocols are layer orthinological, remove them from the layers all together, because OSPF is sure as hell not a 'link' layer protocol.

I don't know what is the general approach that people take when editing entries here but, but I can tall you my approach (I'm not going to edit this entry): better to omit then to mislead.

OP 77.126.112.104 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages

25-Jan-2009: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2003" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 2 entries (including "Layers" & "Vandalism...") into date order for 2006 & 2007.
Then I added a box "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Revising intro mid-1980s and freeware

25-Jan-2009: I think the intro should be reworded, as I have begun, to emphasize that the Internet emerged by the mid-1980s and note that the World Wide Web and "graphical" web browser Mosaic were freeware that "followed" the Internet. Too many articles give the impression that Tim Berners-Lee developed the Internet on "a Friday night" (10 years after reality) rather than added HyperCard-style interfaces to the existing Internet. I don't know if people are POV-pushing Berners-Lee as "Mr. Internet" but the sources indicate he created freeware versions 5 years after existing DECnet & HyperCard-type (1987) systems. Creating freeware is typical for many government employees and helps to quickly spread the software to other groups. In fact, creating a freeware encyclopedia could generate over 2 million articles 5 years later ("Wikipedia"!). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee developed ENQUIRE about half a decade before HyperCard and is far more similar to HTML, any reference to HyperCard here seems, well, misplaced. I also don't think there needs to be more elaboration on the web browser. If anything, I could see it being cut back rather than expanded. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Creating a design isn't the same level of work as a marketed product, so I don't think comparing existing LANs of 1984 with use of the term "WorldWideWeb" in 1989 is NPOV neutral. The fairest connection is the "World Wide Web deployed in 1992" and even that might be too soon. The LANs were much earlier: DECnet in 1975 (OSI model by 1982), Novell NetWare in 1983, or AppleTalk by 1984. That's why I set the timing as "mid-1980s". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of TCP/IP model and Internet Protocol Suite

Please see Talk:TCP/IP model#Proposed merge for discussion. --Abdull (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tanenbaum

I'm looking at a Dutch translation from Andrew S. Tanenbaum's "Computer Networks, Third edition" right now. On pages 29 to 36, it describes the ISO model; then, on pages 37 to 39, it gives an introduction in the TCP/IP reference model.

Tanenbaum names the following layers in TCP/IP:

• Application layer (functionally similar to OSI's application layer)
• Transport layer (similar to OSI's transport layer)
• Internet layer (similar to OSI's network layer)
• Host-to-network layer (implementing functionality from OSI's datalink- and physical layer).

The paragraph about the host-to-network layer transcribes approximately to the following:

"Under the Internet layer is a big empty space. The TCP/IP reference model doesn't say a lot about what happens here, except that it specifies that the host has to connect to the network using a protocol that allows it to send IP packets. This protocol isn't defined; it varies from host to host and from network to network. In books and articles about the TCP/IP model, this protocol is rarely ever mentioned"

As examples, Tanenbaum mentions ARPANET, SATNET, Packet radio, and LAN. -- Wouter Verhelst 10:59, 5 May 2004

There are only FOUR layers in the TCP/IP suite! The Tantenbaum citing is correct. Please fix your main definition page. -- MJ Foy Sr. MCSE, MCT, Net+ A+, CCNA, CNA, Security+, BS 16:39, 21 July 2004

The TCP/IP suite does not have a fixed number of layers, nor are protocols formally assigned to any layer. It only talks about protocol dependencies (i.e. protocol A uses protocol B). In fact, with some of the ISO protocols which have been adopted to run over TCP, there are in fact more than 4 levels of protocol involved, since the ISO session/etc protocols are used as well as the application. Noel (talk) 05:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tanenbaum updated

In Andrew S. Tanenbaum book, 4th edition, the author chose to explain the TCP/IP suite as an hybrid model with 5 layers:

• Application
• Transport
• Network
• Data Link
• Physical

I like this. In my opinion I would only change the name of the network layer to either internetwork layer as named by Cisco, or internet layer as named by Stallings.

In my opinion internetwork layer reflects more the nature of this layer since packets may need to traverse several networks, possible of different technologies, in order to arrive to destination.

Miguel 201.58.179.157 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as you take it as a teaching method only, fine. If Tanenbaum had published this in a IETF Standards Track RFC, it would be authoritative. He didn't, and it's not.

No IETF standard uses 4 layers; RFC 1122 specifies four, and no IETF document depends on OSI. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something to the discussion. In my option there 4 layer in the TCP/IP suite as it is.

• Application
• Transport
• Internet
• Network

Actually Network do not need to be a physical network, it can be virtual network, or loopack device, or anything, it can be satelite link, it can be carrier avian. In case of tunneling we can end in something like this:

• Application
• Transport
• IP:Internet
• TunTap device
• OpenVPN:Application
• TCP:Transport
• IP:Internet
• OtherNetwork

Similary modification can be done up. One can for example consider SSL as being beetwen Transport and Application layer!

• Application (i.e. IMAP,HTTP)
• SSL
• TCP:Transport
• IP:Internet
• Network

And as last word we are talking about Internet Suite, which is called TCP/IP. But TCP in it is not enaugh. We have also ICMP, IGMP, UDP, SCTP, IPIP and houndrets others "transport" protocols (which are on the same level as TCP, as they generally talk to IP layer), and also ARP, IGMP, and sometimes others protocols side by side of IP ("Internet" level), as they generally also want something from the Network directly (mostly broadcast something, or change some other aspect of link). I.e. DHCP is strange in this respect as it slightly violate layering. Sometimes routing protocols also goes here and there (but it can be generally be viewed that thay are application protocols, and are only "modifing" routing information available to the IP layer). So there is many interconections. Not to mention for example that most applications (from Application layer), want to know not only the port from TCP stack, but also IP addresses from IP stack. :)

Witek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.216.23 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Session layer description missing

The article is missing a description of the session layer. Can anyone supply one? Tim Watson 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The protocol suite is missing a session-layer protocol. Can anyone supply one? :-)

I.e., the reason is why the article is missing a description of the session layer is that the TCP/IP model doesn't have a session layer; there's no standard session-layer protocol in the Internet protocol suite.

Note that the session layer page says the session layer is typically unused, and indicates that it's mainly used for synchronizing multiple data sequences. However, the OSI model standard (ISO/IEC 7498-1) seems to be speaking of "synchronization" as a function of a single session, and doesn't seem to indicate what sort of "synchronization" is done. The OSI session protocol standard (ISO/IEC 8327-1) doesn't do a much better job of describing what sort of synchronization this is.

In addition, that page has a motley collection of "examples" containing a large number of protocols most of which do things that don't appear to be concerned primarily with the sort of functions that the OSI session layer performs.

So it's not exactly clear to me, for example, what the session layer is - and I'm not sure to whom, if anybody, it is clear. Guy Harris 09:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The session layer corresponds to Telnet in most internet protocols (HTTP, SMTP, FTP, IRC, etc), to my understanding. These protocols use text based commands separated by a new line on top of what can be described as a simplified telnet version. Therefor it is possible to fake a web client, mail client, irc client, etc, by means of telnet. Sometimes a separate pseudo terminal process handles the telnet communication, but normally it is simply a piece of code copied into the application protocol implementation, without a standardized API. Therefor it can not be considered as a separate protocol layer.

The OSI model session layer also corresponds to some functions in the TCP/UDP transport protocols, for example the port numbering.

The session layer deals with the dialog, and may ensure that an answer it associated with correct request, if several outstanding questions may be allowed, i.e. several parallell tasks. There is no standard for this in the Internet as it was in the OSI/X.25 world. In telnet it is up to the operational system or the application. In HTTP this is done by creating a new socket for simultaneous file tranfers.

Perhaps this should be added to the article?

Mange01 10:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How does Telnet correspond to the session layer in the text-based protocols? About the only part of Telnet used is the Network Virtual Terminal character set.

Don't ports in the Internet protocol suite's transport protocols correspond to TSAP's in the OSI transport protocols, so aren't they a transport-layer function? Guy Harris 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no section in this article about the "session layer" because there is really no such thing in the internet protocol suite, its only brief mention is as part of how people shoehorn TCP/IP into the OSI model. With the TCP/IP everything above TCP or UDP is the responsibility of the application. Plugwash 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the above commenters that say that there is no session layer because the Internet Protocol Suite model never had a session layer. Session layer functions are in the Application layer, but that layer need not be monolithic. If you want to see an IETF protocol with functionality similar to the OSI Session Layer, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt Remote Procedure Call.Howard C. Berkowitz 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Session layer does NOT belong to the Internet Protocol Suite! Even Application layer is beyond IPS. Telnet is not in IPS, FTP is not in IPS, HTTP is not in IPS. There is no need to add any such section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.216.23 (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article title is wrong

The vast majority of sources show Internet protocol suite, not Internet Protocol Suite. That is, only Internet should be capitalized. Someone fix the title please. Thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• 26-Jan-2009: Some sources/books do use the same capitalized title ("Internet Protocol Suite") with acronym "IPS" although Microsoft has published the title with lowercase "suite" noting IPv4 and IPv6. By comparison, over 90% of webpages spell "e-mail" as "email" (without the hypen), which is officially wrong, but that's 90% of the time. Hence, the spelling shouldn't depend on the majority usage. I think the capitalized title is fine, but keep the current 2 redirection titles for lowercase "Internet Protocol suite" and "Internet protocol suite" because both are used in the literature as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the correct usage is lowercase ("Internet protocol suite"), as consistently used by the late RFC Editor, Jon Postel. See, e.g., RFCs 1160, 1280, 1360, 1500, 1540, 1600, 1720, 1780, etc. Please read some RFCs before making statements with no basis in the published literature. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia Supposed to be for Everyone?

This article reads like a technical journal. I agree that technical detail is good and necessary, but I don't see a good on-ramp for the average reader to get an idea what this subject is about. Landroo (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, how about a schematic of how the layers are mapped into the stream of buts transmitted? The information is probably in the article, but worded so abstractly that it's difficult for a non-expert to extract. A blow-by-blow narration/explanation of flow of the TCP/IP stack diagram would be a tremendous help too. Thanks. JKeck (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of above. However, making some abstract concepts easy to understand is really difficult. Wiki's materials are concise and wide-ranged compared with RFCs and textbooks, as what's originally required: it's an introduction, not tutorial or manual. Making things simpler is the goal, but space must be left with the authors of related books and documents. --RFClover (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Layers paragraphs 2 and 3 need tidying

At this point in time paras 2 and 3 read :-

"The Internet Protocol Suite, like many protocol suites, is constructed as a set of layers. Each layer solves a set of problems involving the transmission of data. In particular, the layers define the operational scope of the protocols within.

Often a component of a layer provides a well-defined service to the upper layer protocols and may be using services from the lower layers. Upper layers are logically closer to the user and deal with more abstract data, relying on lower layer protocols to translate data into forms that can eventually be physically transmitted."

1. What is "particular" about the 3rd sentence? (Something "particular" be directing us to focus on a specific point? It doesn't.)
2. "operational scope" seems to be a meaningless phrase that could apply be applied to a say a step in frying eggs.
3. I would have though every component of a layer *must* be well-defined for the protocol to work

So in summary, for such an important umbrella topic, these need to be reworked somehow. Watch this space! martyvis (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You removed the wrong stuff from the lede. It is the concept of scope that governs TCP/IP layering, and not the 'well-defined service' model of providing and receiving upper/lower level functions as is the case in OSI networking. In TCP/IP there are numerous 'violations' of such ideas and the notion of strict layering by services has been dispelled by the IETF. Kbrose (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if "scope" is important then we need to define it more. The other detail on the layers is good, but I am wondering whether this is too much for the introductory section. If this information isn't in "Layer in the Internet Protocol Suite" already we should move it there, and try to pare down what you have to about a third. martyvis (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: request withdrawn. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Internet Protocol Suite → Internet protocol suite –

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE, and because this is a generic, common noun, not a propriety term or a title, the article title should be downcased. Tony (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not a common noun, it is the specific set of protocols that adhere to the concepts discussed in the article. There can be many Internet protocol suites, as even OSI could be called an Internet protocol suite since its purpose was clearly for the same goal. The situation is much like the word Internet (vs. internet), it can be used in both forms of capitalization, but the discussion of this article is about the specific model, including the layered architecture. Kbrose (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. No, it is used here as a proper noun to refer to the specific Internet Protocol Suite, not any other arrangement nor configuration (suite) of protocols for inter-networking. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• So let me get this right (because it's not entirely clear from the text, at least at the top, to a reader who doesn't already know this field): there's one and only one such suite, called the IPS. It might be modified from time to time, but people always know what specific protocols and structures it comprises at any one time? If so, yeah, it should be upper-cased, and thanks for clarifying. I note two previous attempts to downcase it:

• [1]
• [2]

Here are the ngrams. The green line is interesting:

ngrams. Tony (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As Kbrose pointed out, 'Internet protocol suite' can be used to refer to a general inter-networking protocol suite, such as OSI; however, that is not the context of this article. The green line peaks in the mid to late '90s, which is the period of time that OSI was considered by many to be a viable replacement for TCP/IP. They all fall off after this period, likely because the Internet Protocol Suite is more commonly refered to as simply as 'IP' after that period. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I accept your reasons. Tony (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, revived

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Internet Protocol Suite → Internet protocol suite – The RM above was prematurely withdrawn after Tony accepted a flaky rationale. Since the defining official RFC documents all say "Internet protocol suite", I see no basis for doing otherwise. And a better n-gram comparison that eliminates title context is made by putting "the" in front, and shows a more consistent majority usage as non-proper: [3]. If most books treat it as generic, why should we not follow our MOS:CAPS and make it lower case? There are also a fair number of "Internet Protocol suite", which seems logical for those who think that it's IP modifying suite, but that's not how the IETF defines it. And these book hits are still clearly in the context of the Internet protocol suite, not an internet protocol suite or an Internet protocol suite. They all refer to the topic of this article, possibly unlike some in the previous ngram search that Tony did. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support—I have to agree. It's just a suite of things. The wording of the title cannot be mistaken for anything else. It seems like another case of upcasing the expanded form solely because it's abbreviated with caps. Tony (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony, the suite is actually not commonly abbreviated. --EnOreg (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support —Ruud 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While Tony's move requests to lower case are generally justified, which is why I have not bothered to comment on them, this is an exception. He was right the second time: this is not about a class of suites, this is about a specific entity, using the name proper to that entity. JCScaliger (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • My move rationale cited evidence in sources for the generic use, including in the official document of the IETF. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that it's a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support although weakly. For a long time it could be considered a proper name of sorts, since there was one real protocol (Internet Protocol of course) at its center. However, by now at least there are two, IPv4 and IPv6. So it could be interpreted more as "a set of protocols specified by IETF" which would argue for the lower case of the "protocol" and "suite" but capitalize "Internet" since one particular one of those is meant. And yes I do strongly agree that all the generic "layer" names should be lower except for very specific ones. W Nowicki (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm afraid I'm not sure about this one. The lemma indeed refers to one particular suite of protocols, namely those specified by the IETF around the Internet Protocol. --EnOreg (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But the IETF documents don't capitalize "Internet protocol suite", even though they do capitalized "Internet Protocol" when referring to IP. They also distinguish generic uses of the latter, as in "Internet protocol experts", which are experts on Internet protocols, not on IP. The suite is generic. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The intro to RFC1123 makes it clear that IP overlaps the suite, via the IP layer; it doesn't define the suite, which is why it's not "Internet Protocol suite":

  This document is one of a pair that defines and discusses the
  requirements for host system implementations of the Internet protocol
  suite.  This RFC covers the applications layer and support protocols.
  Its companion RFC, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communications
  Layers" [INTRO:1] covers the lower layer protocols: transport layer,
  IP layer, and link layer.

Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't much trust standardization bodies on spelling, even if the IETF does better in this respect than, e.g., ISO. A search on Google Books shows very inconsistent capitalization of the term. Maybe there is no clear answer.

I don't want to stand in the way of either decision. I just wanted to explain why I cannot support the motion. I don't oppose it either. --EnOreg (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Very inconsistent" in sources supports lower case on wikipedia, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see protocol stack and protocol suite. Are they siblings in the sense that wp:titles talks of? Tony (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think they are siblings but the more generic concepts. The question is if this refers to one particular one, or a family of related ones as indicated above. W Nowicki (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead

I know it's the wrong place to start, but I did a minor change to the wording in the lead. The last para may need more work (introduced in this edit). Grammatically "This is called the link." is unfortunate as it interferes with the flow to the next sentence, namely "It provides..." (what is "It"?). Also, I'm wondering if the sentence contributes much, and I'm thinking it should be removed. I am puzzled by:

The internet layer provides communication methods between multiple links of a computer and facilitates the interconnection of networks.

The internet layer is concerned with conveying data from a source to a destination, possibly over multiple links—some rewording is needed, and I cannot see why "multiple links of a computer" should be mentioned at that point. The application layer wording needs some thought. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed that last paragraph in the lead. We have plenty of body text and linked articles (in the previous paragraph) that cover the details. Very broad strokes are all that are required here. --Kvng (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

overlap

the diagram "Sample encapsulation of data within a UDP datagram within an IP packet" overlaps with the list to it's left, on medium sized windows. I suggest moving the diagram downwards, or replacing it with something smaller.

Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Service/Model Layer

I think this exists above the application layer. DarkNRG (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Protocols need written for this layer. DarkNRG (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

These claims are not supported by the well-referenced chart in the article. -- Beland (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The content of this article is a duplication of effort in the article TCP/IP model, which is more well established.

Merge discussion is being conducted at Talk:TCP/IP model#Merge_discussion. Please post comments there. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I implemented the merge. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion: Category:TCP/IP -> TCP / Transmission Control Protocol

Everyone kindly is invited to take part in the discussion to rename Category:TCP/IP, please see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012_August_9#Category:TCP/IP. -- intgr [talk] 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Standards Bodies overseeing this model

The last sentence of the first section claims that "The TCP/IP model and related protocols are maintained by the [IETF]", which is incorrect/incomplete. Ethernet for instance is a standard maintained by the IEEE (IEEE 802.3); ISDN was developed by the ITU. I don't know enough about the various link layer protocols to spell out a complete list of standards bodies, but my gut says that protocols at the link layer are commonly not an IETF standard. Eli.heady (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The question we need to answer is if these lower lever protocols are included in the "TCP/IP" model? I don't think that they are. The IETF does oversee the use of these lower level protocols within or by other parts of the "TCP/IP" model. Still it might be good to expand this to say something like:

"The TCP/IP model and related protocols are maintained by the [IETF]. Some of the protocols used by the TCP/IP model are maintained by other standards bodies such as the IEEE (Ethernet, 802.11), ITU (ISDN), and W3C (World Wide Web)."

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the notable BSD TCP/IP stack implementation

The BSD TCP/IP stack has been one of the early implementations to be borrowed by various corporations (including various UNIX and Microsoft Windows), which won notable land speed records, and that is still being used today by many systems and companies because of its flexible license, high portability, scalability and configurability (Cisco, QNX, *BSD, MacOSX, Solaris, Juniper, etc). Remains for someone who has time to do some librarian reference research and include this in the history and/or implementations section(s), though... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the most common API to access network services on operating systems is still the BSD IPC one (see Berkeley Sockets, with Winsock being a compatible library implementation as well), and that IPv6 deployment pioneer projects (see KAME project, WIDE Project) were also based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I revisited the article. An unreference sentence also reads: "Many companies sold TCP/IP stacks for Windows until Microsoft released its own TCP/IP stack in Windows 95.", it is known that the Windows TCP/IP stack was also based on the BSD one, at least early revisions. Moreover, the AT&T code left in the BSD TCP /IP stack, if any, was pruned in 1988, after USL v. BSDi. A full BSD OS free of AT&T code was subsequently released as Net/2 in 1991, including a TCP stack, which was widely borrowed, due to its liberal license. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Under History:Adoption, a correction

You say under the heading "Adoption": "In March 1982, the US Department of Defense declared TCP/IP as the standard for all military computer networking.[7] In 1985, the Internet Architecture Board held a three-day workshop on TCP/IP for the computer industry, attended by 250 vendor representatives, promoting the protocol and leading to its increasing commercial use.'

According to the article on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), in 1985 the IAB, technically, did not yet exist. Here's a quote from that article, which is found at: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Board "The body which eventually became the IAB was created originally by the United States Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with the name Internet Configuration Control Board during 1979; it eventually became the Internet Advisory Board during September, 1984, and then the Internet Activities Board during May, 1986 (the name was changed, while keeping the same acronym). It finally became the Internet Architecture Board, under ISOC, during January, 1992, as part of the Internet's transition from a U.S.-government entity to an international, public entity."

Thought you might want to adjust your paragraph in light of the above chronology. Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. --EnOreg (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikifan2744 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Host-to-host, process-to-process communication

The article talks about the "transport layer handling host-to-host communication". The host address, however, is the network-layer address whereas at the transport layer, port numbers identify an individual process on a host. Can someone please resolve this apparent contradiction? --EnOreg (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? Kbrose (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the communication is happening on the layer that does the addressing, i.e., the network layer uses host addresses because it handles host-to-host communication, just like the transport layer uses process addresses (port numbers) because it handles process-to-process communication. The current text, in contrast, says that the "transport layer [handles] host-to-host communication". How is that true? --EnOreg (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the communication actually happens at the layer above always, Internet Layer provides addresses, but the communication between end-to-end hosts happens above as the Internet Layer has no means to establish a connection (in case of TCP for example). Same with the port numbers, provided by the Transport Layer. The protocols in that layer have no means to actually use a port number; the transport protocol provides the end point to the layer above. Only the Application Layer understands the meaning of the port. The term port is really a synonym for service. The diagram on the page also illustrates this, and pure routers don't actually need an implementation of the Transport Layer for the purpose of exchanging packets. So, a layer provides tools for the actions/communications of the higher layer in general. But as TCP/IP does not enforce such layering ideas strictly, there may well be other interpretations and contrary interpretations for specific cases. Kbrose (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. So maybe the definition of communication is too ambiguous. In the given context I interpret the term to mean the exchange of data, not their interpretation. If that is not the intended meaning we should find a wording to make that clear.

The network layer delivers data from one host to another, whereas the transport layer delivers data from a particular process on the source host to a particular process on the destination host, right? On top of this, the program running in the process implements a particular service and exchanges data using the protocol associated with that service, representing the application layer. This appears consistent with the rest of the article, right? --EnOreg (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The network layer is called Internet Layer in TCP/IP, it is a layer that provides internetworking, meaning it connects or bridges the scope of networks, not host-to-host. At the top, in the Application Layer we have a pipe between processes, in the Transport Layer we find a pipe between hosts, the Internet Layer is a pipe between networks, and the Link Layer is a pipe between two interfaces on the same link. The diagram illustrates this. The TCP/IP model is entirely scope-based. Whether the interaction is called communications or data exchange is not really important, where interpretation happens is outside the scope of the model, but since an application is the only logical entity that could possibly interpret payload data, it would be in the Application Layer. Kbrose (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the lag. RL interfered. Hm, I'm surprised we have such a fundamentally different understanding. To get out of this we could search the literature for evidence for either view, or ask a third opinion. In the IP context I can't find much about "host-to-host" at all. RFC 1122, in section "Internet Layer" says:
"All Internet transport protocols use the Internet Protocol (IP) to carry data from source host to destination host."
Tanenbaum says about the Internet layer:
"Its job is to permit hosts to inject packets into any network and have them travel independently to the destination (potentially on a different network)." And:
"The network layer is concerned with getting packets from the source all the way to the destination" and "is the lowest layer that deals with end-to-end transmission."
All this seems to say that IP (the network layer) carries data from host to host. About process-to-process communication Tanenbaum only has this to say:
"In the transport layer, entire connections can be encrypted end to end, that is, process to process."
Where does your concept come from?

As a side-note: It's generally not a good idea to edit subjects while they are being discussed. Surely you know about the potential of such actions to cause edit wars. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could revert this part of your May 2 edit until we've achieved a consensus. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Implementations

This section states "the suite has been implemented on essentially every computing platform". This is far from true, some platforms have insufficient computing power to implement the whole suite, and for some platforms there are no implementations. May I suggest this is reworded to 'implemented on nearly every platform from (some date) onwards.' No citations or references either.

Also is there a list of IP suite implementations on WP? John a s (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in "internet layer"

I've downcased "Internet layer" here and elsewhere. It seems to be more the generic concept, about internetworking, as opposed to a reference to the Internet (when I use TCP/IP to talk to my sprinkler controller, I use the internet layer, but I don't use a network that connects to the Internet, for example). There are a few sources (less than 20% of books, for sure) that capitalize "Internet layer" while downcasing "link layer", but the vast majority don't treat "internet" in this context differently from "link"; the original IETF documents actually have it in sentences both ways, so that's not so helpful. Most official TCP/IP docs don't do layers at all, so that too suggests that it's generic. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see I just got reverted. I have no issue on the over-linking complaint. I'll wait for comments on the case. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As examples, RFC1122 says

             A packet is the unit of data passed across the interface
             between the internet layer and the link layer.  It
             includes an IP header and data.  A packet may be a
             complete IP datagram or a fragment of an IP datagram.

but also

             IGMP is an Internet layer protocol used for establishing
             dynamic host groups for IP multicasting.

while RFC1123 uses "IP layer" instead; same layer, different naming concept. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet in Internet layer does not refer to some general inter-networking: it refers to the Big-I, the Internet. You know, the one that we are exchanging these comments on. (This also has been discussed and agreed before.) — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why do so many sources lower-case it? And why do my packets have to go through the internet layer to speak IP on my private net that doesn't connect to the Internet? Where has it been discussed before? Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon is correct, and the revert (diff) has produced mistakes like:

According to RFC 1122, the Internet protocol suite organizes the functional groups of protocols and methods into four layers, the application layer, the transport layer, the Internet layer, and the link layer.

The uppercase 'I' was not an issue until very recently because (as far as I can see), previous versions of the article used text like "the Internet Layer, and the Link Layer". While it would be interesting to see the previous discussion mentioned above, any conclusion that "internet layer" in TCP/IP needs to be spelled "Internet layer" is erroneous. Of course TCP/IP was developed for what was to become the Internet, but as the first sentence of the article correctly acknowledges, it was also "and other similar networks". Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The internet layer of the Internet protocol suite: that's absurd. You have gone crazy lowercasing proper nouns. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not absurd. I would have been quite happy to leave "Internet Layer" unchanged, but that issue is not related to the current discussion, although of course it revealed the problem (and I'm sure this discussion will be repeated at least once a month). TCP/IP is a system of networking that uses four layers, and one of those layers is the "internet layer" which includes things like a destination IP address so datagrams can be copied from network to network via routers (hence "internetwork"). TCP/IP was always intended to be quite general, and "internet" is just an abbreviation for "internetwork". The reason for the capital I in Internet is to distinguish the Internet from all the other internets that also use TCP/IP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

internet is not an abbreviation—its not even a word: internet. could be, but isn't (check any dictionary). Internet is a proper name. — Dgtsyb (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're too young. Back in the day, papers such as this one discussed internet routing, internet addressing, internet packets, etc., before there was "the Internet"; the techniques were developed on the ARPANET and the internal networks of various companies and universities. Or this one where Vint Cerf and Yogen Dalal define TCP for internets, before there was IP. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was programming computers before the Internet was even conceived. Go to websters and punch in internet (lowercase) and we what you get: Internet, capital "I", the global communications network. They don't list any abbreviation. Likely because internet is not even a word. — Dgtsyb (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Though the early 1990's, it was common to have networks of computers not connected to the Internet, which were called internets. The internet idea comes from having a network of networks, with protocols and hardware to route between them. Mail was often routed through UUCP on dial-up phone lines. Networks of networks not connected to the Internet can reasonably be called internets, and the process behind them is called internetworking, both with lower case i. But now it is more usual to call local internets intranets. I think internet, as in internet protocol, and internetworking should have lower case i, but some will disagree. Gah4 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So much for that guess. But here are some dictionaries that explain lowercase internet: [4] (particularly this one and this one and this one). Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't dictionaries: they are books of jargon and other invented words that are not part of the English language. Only Internet appears in a real dictionary. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The online Oxford learners dictionary lists "internet" as an alternative. And several dictionaries say that "Internet" first appeared in 1985. So maybe the older and generic uses are indeed uses of that "jargon" as you call it. So what? Does that mean that when the IETF defined an "internet layer" they were referring to "the Internet"? I can't see the logic there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on Internet capitalization conventions that you might want to look at. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems that the case distinction is pretty conventional, if not universal. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Section 7.76 in the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) says:

Terms like "web" and "Internet." ... generic terms that are capitalized as part of the official name of a system or an organization may be lowercased when used alone or in combination.

And gives this example: "Internet protocol (IP); the Internet; the net; an intranet".

Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I seem to read a fallacy hereabove that because 'Internet' is now considered a proper noun, everything that is now associated with it or is prefixed by that word ought to be in upper case. What do the sources say – I'm referring to the world at large and not boffins' publications or 'technical' journals? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, we got over capitalizing "layer" and "protocol suite" already, so that's not the issue. The issue is about when "internet" itself is generic. One user says never, though many docs, and some dictionaries, say often, when it's not referring to the Internet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• I also notice that this graphic, used in the article, seems also to be in breach of WP:CAPS. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we have guidelines for text in images? Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's a great pity that this confusion still exists about I verus i in internet. Yes, IT professionals often still make the distinction between the worldwide Internet and smaller, in-house networks with a lowercase i. But almost no one has heard of this distinction, and in normal writing, including the press, they decided some time ago it's all too fussy, and use internet for all. That is how it will end up, I can assure you, and in compound derivative items like this one, I think it would do everyone a favour if we used lower case. Tony (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You are probably correct about the eventual outcome, but regardless, in this article there is no reason to use a cap I (apart from a mistaken belief that "internet layer" refers to the Internet). The cap I is particularly silly in text like "the link layer, the Internet layer, the transport layer, and the application layer". Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Just because the ordinary person believes something bogus doesn't mean we have to cater to them. There's a difference between 'internet' (the technical concept), and 'Internet' (the particular worldwide network using that technology), and one day people will get it straight (just like the White House is not the only white house - and most people manage to capitalize that one correctly). Having said that, "internet" is correct here - we're talking about a generic concept, not 'the' Internet Protocol (which is capitalized because it's a particular internet protocol, not, say, PUP). Noel (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Fully concur with Noel and Dgtsyb on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

SIP As Transport Protocol in OSI?

In the TCP model, Session Initiation Protocol is at application layer because there really is nothing else over the transport layer. But given what is listed on OSI, it seems SIP should be included at the transport layer there. This is especially true with its growing importance of SIP in VoIP.

It just seems like it should be here somewhere... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.127.124.134 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 August 2005.

OSI is a nice idea, but not everything fits quite the way it should. Gah4 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please Remember The 1960s!

A student of mine approached me with the view that ARPANET was created in the 1970s. The view was taken from Wiki:

"Today's IP networking represents a synthesis of two developments that began in the 1970s, namely LANs (Local Area Networks) and the Internet, both of which have revolutionized computing."

I have inserted "1960s and 1970s" as 1970s alone, when referring to the beginnings of the development of the internet, is misleading.

First, don't forget to sign your posts. Gah4 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems backward to say that IP networking is derived from the Internet. I think it should be the other way around.

Now, LANs originated as local workgroup networking systems. ARPAnet originated with point-to-point leased lines between mainframe systems, when there weren't yet local groups of computers needing networking.

I believe, though, that the idea of an internetwork (small i), that is, a network of networks, didn't come until the 1970's. There just weren't enough computers at the time. UUCP was often used for transport over phone lines between machines that were far apart. In the 1980's, there were many local networks not connected to other networks, or connected through UUCP, or similar links. There were local networking systems, such as ARCnet, not (yet) designed for internetworking. As I knew it, Sun popularized the ethernet connected workgroup with file servers and print servers, connecting to diskless hosts. But fairly late into the 1980's, much of the Internet as it existed went through 56K bit/s leased lines. You could send mail, and transfer small files, but not a lot more. Gah4 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Minimal

Seems to me that minimal implementations wouldn't include IGMP, and maybe not even TCP. The usual boot ROMs, such as to boot diskless Unix machines, only need UDP as a layer four protocol. Gah4 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the following sentence from the Early research sub-section:

The new suite replaced all protocols used previously, PRnet, and SATnet

This appears to be a reference to this. I don't think it is fair to throw this at readers early in the article without so much as a wikilink to refer to. Perhaps the material can be reincorporated later. Also there appears to be linkrot in the references. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References

internetworking

Seems to me that the article should explain more what an internetwork is. I suspect that very few users of the (capital I) Internet know what a (small i) internet(work) is. Without that, you miss the whole point. Gah4 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A TCP joke

"Hi, I'd like to hear a TCP joke."
"Hello, would you like to hear a TCP joke?"
"Yes, I'd like to hear a TCP joke."
"OK, I will tell you a TCP joke."
"Are you ready to hear a TCP joke?"
"Yes, I am ready to hear a TCP joke."
"OK, I am about to send the TCP joke. It will last 10 seconds, has 2 characters, it does not have a setting, it ends with a punchline."
"OK, I am ready to get the TCP joke that will last 10 seconds, has 2 characters, does not have a setting, and ends with a punchline."
"I'm sorry, your connection has been timed out."
"Hello, would you like to hear a TCP joke?"

(I'd tell you a UDP joke, but I'm not sure you'd get it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty good. I have never seen that but I have seen a computer joke a few times. It's irrelevant here but I have to do what I can.

Hardware eventually breaks. Software eventually works.

Check the funky <poem> syntax that I used to refactor your post—wikitext handles poems! Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This made me LOL. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)