By the way, for what it's worth, which is not much ;-), "client/server" postdates a lot of protocols too. FTP uses the terms "user process" and "server process." SMB uses the terms "consumer" and "server."
Priscilla At 09:10 AM 12/14/01, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >To Chuck, I do not agree that the OSI model is "crap". Sometimes it can > >add confusion, but for the most part it is fairly well defined. Also, no > >one ever said TCP/IP follows the OSI model 100%. The concept of layering > >is just very easy to see with the OSI model. TCP/IP generally has only > >layers such as the application, network, transport, and physical. You > >could throw in datalink in there I suppose. It certainly helps people > >understand networks. Without the OSI model, it seems like a lot of random > >musings. TCP/IP has a very clear transport and network and application > >layer. > >Then how is it that the TCP/IP suite was developed before the OSI >reference model was finished, largely by people that, at the time, >were very hostile to the OSI work and vice versa. I was there at the >time, and remember European delegates to ISO making comments like "we >will never use protocols developed by the bomb-crazed American >military." > > > > >Not sure if there was sarcasm or an attack on the "reputable source" that > >"UDP is an application layer" part. I am going to assume so, because it's > >spot as a transport is very clear. > > > >So, it is wrong for me to say that ftp clients and telnet clients use layer > >7? (referencing user application vs service application)? Then where > >would it go? No where? (hence why you say the OSI model is crap?) > >Client/server is again one of those concepts that sometimes needs to >be used precisely. In protocol theory, a client initiates request and >a server responds to them, as opposed to a peer-to-peer >implementation in which either end can initiate requests. > >The term "client" has been overloaded to include user applications >_from_ which requests initiate. > >In formal OSI terminology, any given layer (N) provides a service to >an (N)-user entity above it. In the case of the application layer, >the (N)-user, where N is equal to layer 7, is above the OSI stack. >The point of interface between the application service user and the >application service provider is the Application Service Access Point >(although this evolved further around 1988). > >You mention a UNIX background. Isn't the definition of a daemon a >process that has no tty-equivalents directly attached? The >application layer is the daemon; the user application is the >tty-equivalent. > > > > >To Jose, I feel they do not work at the network layer, and work at the > >application layer. If it uses protocols, (EIGRP and OSPF) it uses IP RAW > >which means it skipped the transport component, ultimately I still feel it > >is at the application layer. > >In my sophomore year of high school, I _felt_ that a girl named Gail >_should_ have reciprocated my affections and lust. She didn't. Just >because, Carroll, you feel something, doesn't make it right. Ignoring >the TCP/IP work, ISO says you are wrong in its "OSI Routeing >Framework" document, in which routing protocols for layer N are >defined as layer management protocols for and of layer N. The >transport they use is irrelevant, because their payloads affect layer >N directly. > > > > >Perhaps it is just my roots that routing daemons are still just daemons, > >programs which run on a box. They dynamically insert information into a > >routing table. Unix machines still do it, a Cisco router is just an > >appliance version of a unix box with a routing daemon with multiple > >interfaces. (without extraneous baggage of course) ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29227&t=29139 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
