Subject: RE: TCP/IP Terms

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:04:35 -0700

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.

---

From: "Bill Cunningham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:40:37 -0400

> model. We don't need two different models.

Fine let them use OSI or whatever they choose. But if TCP/IP has
incompatibilies with token-ring LANS, this
should probably be worked on. I believe in freedom to
choose whatever model you wish, but TCP/IP is the Internet's model. Why does
TCP/IP have trouble passing a token ring around hosts? I've never really got
into that issue. I thought TCP/IP worked fine in Intranets.