🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.115319.21112W@lumina.edb.tih.no> ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH) writes:
>Then you have the fighting young priests, making detailed comparisons
>for the sole purpose of showing how useless (wretched or whatever) one
>alternative is, compared to the other.

Actually, what they usually show is how dismal the OSI model is for
analysis.  Even the OSI protocols don't "fit" the OSI model in any
significant analytical sense, with most of the layers turned sideways
to allow functions to slip up or down at will.

The OSI model is useful mainly for its descriptive properties.
"Network layer" implies certain functionality which helps in
conversation, but in practice that functionality is rarely contained
in a neat layer between datalink and transport.  Ironically, it's the
OSI protocol suite itself which has the most drastic examples of
non-layering, although any competent network expert will tell you that
that, in itself, is not a deficiency.

>In article <SALKIELD.93Jan26224429@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk>, 
>salkield@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (Tom Salkield) writes:
>>I am posting on behalf of a friend who needs to compare the layers of
>>the internet protocol suite with the OSI seven layer model as part of
>>his course assignment.

Your friend would probably find it easier to do his homework himself.
It doesn't take a significant amount of information about TCP/IP and
the OSI model to do this analysis.  I doubt that cribbing the answer
from some other source will acheive the educational goal that your
friend's instructor had in mind.  And it's certainly not the kind of
thing worth bothering thousands of people about.

						don provan
						donp@novell.com