• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    No, you read it right. I just assumed my meaning would be clearer than it apparently was. To me, the word “TCP model” doesn’t strictly mean anything. There’s the TCP protocol, and the TCP/IP model. I assumed my usage of the word “model” would make it clear that I meant the latter, but I guess I can see how people would interpret it as the former.

    though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used

    A real-world implementation of OSI would involve separate protocols for each layer. There have been numerous different ways of describing TCP/IP in terms of OSI layers, but roughly speaking, the broadest possible interpretation is that TCP/IP’s “application layer” covers OSI layers 5, 6, and 7, with TCP covering layer 4, and IP layer 3. But some analyses also suggest TCP/UDP ports are a layer 5 concern. Ultimately, the TCP/IP networking model is a separate way of looking at things to the OSI model, and it would be silly to suggest that it’s the same.

    • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Just saw this comment.

      Yes, you are completely right. That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner.

      Obviously TCP/IP is better at describing TCP/IP than OSI, though while OSI also can be used to describe TCP/IP in a sub-optimal manner, TCP/IP cannot be used to describe OSI.