kre / Bill, >>> kre wrote: >>> I'd actually much prefer for OSI to win the "war of the >>> definitions". Rigid definitions tend to constrain thinking >>> to fit into the patterns defined. We're much better off >>> just having a rough idea what things mean when it gets to >>> this level.
>> Bill Cunningham wrote: >> I for one, don't want to see OSI overtake in any way TCP/IP, >> even in definitions. > I don't want to see TCP/IP be overtaken either. Nobody's ever suggested this. > kre wrote: > It's the root of the Internet, not OSI or anything else. > Maybe TCP/IP needs to be more competative. In terms of design, if you do TCP/IP *only* design, the TCP/IP model is probably enough. However, the Internet is not only TCP/IP. Carriers, for example, don't care much if their fiber transports TCP/IP or IPX or voice or video or GigE. And, there are complex multi-protocol networks that a) don't use only TCP/IP and b) would not be able to use the TCP/IP model anyway because it's too simple. Also, the Internet can be used to tunnel other protocols. How would you describe the subtilities of Token-Ring DLSW+ with the TCP/IP model? I understand that we are the *Internet* Engineering Task Force. However, I don't see the incompatibility between TCP/IP and the OSI model. The bottom line is: lots of people are going to continue using the OSI model. We don't need two different models. Michel.
