Re: Historical question: Link layer flow control / silent discard

Am 28.05.2013 18:51, schrieb Bob Braden:
>
>
> So what are the poor OSI devotees, who believe in One Network to Rule 
> them All, to do?
>

The point is: The OSI model is a *reference model*. I apologize, when 
I'm carrying cowls to Newcastle here, but it took me sometime to accept 
this myself.

There is no need to fit anything into the OSI model and - vice versa - 
the OSI model may differ from reality.

Sometimes, things are done twice. That's annoying. Sometimes, things are 
missing, then it's a "problem".

> We IETFers are pragmatists, not layer model purists. (as illustrated 
> by our lack of
> embarassment about splitting the layers with MPLS, IPsec, TLS, etc.)  
> We became careless and smudged over
> the network/internetwork distinction. So, IETFers generally refer to 
> the Internetwork layer as the "network layer." Then the Internet
> protocol stack sort of looks like the OSI stack, and there is an 
> illusion that the OSI stack has something to do with reality.
>
> If IP is the "network layer" (we are too lazy to say "internetwork 
> layer"), then what is the Ethernet? In IP land, it is a subnet(work). But
> for those who believe that IP is really our network layer, then the 
> next layer below IP was dubbed  the Link Layer, because it
> seems to correspond to the OSI Data Link Layer. That is the answer to 
> your question.

However, we have to make sure that mechanism on the "IP internetworking 
layer" and the "Ethernet network layer" do not interfere.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Detlef Bosau
Galileistraße 30
70565 Stuttgart                            Tel.:   +49 711 5208031
                                            mobile: +49 172 6819937
                                            skype:     detlef.bosau
                                            ICQ:          566129673
[email protected]                     http://www.detlef-bosau.de