undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjlmcguire5y ago0 comments

This is one of those cases where both sides have some insight depending on viewpoint. The OSI model is like every other model. It isn't reality (at least in TCP/IP) but instead is a helpful abstraction esp. around troubleshooting and understanding networking concepts. There comes a point where the model breaks down but that doesn't mean it's an unhelpful model just that it isn't a complete picture. I try and work networking problems through the OSI layer model but am aware when things don't really fit well into it (MPLS, MSS, ARP, Layer 5-7).

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

msla5y ago· 1 in thread

I agree with you, except that the use of the OSI model seems to be distorting history: TCP/IP went up against OSI and won, even though OSI was favored, because TCP/IP could get working systems faster. That's a lesson which should be learned, but it gets obscured if you think that TCP/IP implemented OSI and there never was a competition.

Plus, the OSI model is rather complicated; there's a "TCP/IP Model" with four layers which is a lot simpler:

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/tcp-ip-model/

> Process/Application Layer

> Host-to-Host/Transport Layer

> Internet Layer

> Network Access/Link Layer

(This seems to be the RFC 1122 model, BTW.)

RFC 1122 and RFC 871 each have models, too.

RFC 871 has:

> Application/Process

> Host-to-host

> Network interface

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

swinglock5y ago

It's just part of the lingo, a tool to communicate. The TCP/IP model ignores the physical layer making it a less useful tool.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse