Apologies, that’s my fault, I thought you wrote “TCP model(/protocol)” and not “TCP/IP model”, which are indeed two very different things.
I feel that the OSI model focuses more on the specific layers with their relations and physical/digital setup, while the TCP/IP model has more of a abstract and “high-level”-focus. I think both have their ups and downs, though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used”.
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.
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.
No trolling. You “gave up” because you made a stupid comment saying that the TCP/IP model is an implementation of the OSI model. Which is a nonsense claim that any basic course on networking would disabuse you of.
Also no “arguing”. Everyone except you was having a very civil and engaging conversation.
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
Uhh, no, not really. That literal comparison was my attempt at explaining to you why the two are not equivalent models since you seemed confused about why I would say that. Normally, I’d just stop at “OSI is a theoretical model that exists but was never practically implemented, TCP/IP is used instead.” Because honestly I thought that was fairly self-explanatory. It’s kinda 101-level stuff in networking courses at uni.
Apologies, that’s my fault, I thought you wrote “TCP model(/protocol)” and not “TCP/IP model”, which are indeed two very different things.
I feel that the OSI model focuses more on the specific layers with their relations and physical/digital setup, while the TCP/IP model has more of a abstract and “high-level”-focus. I think both have their ups and downs, though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used”.
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.
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.
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.
I can’t believe people are actually arguing with this guy. I gave up. Try asking him about frames and the media layer.
Not sure what the point of this kind of troll is.
No trolling. You “gave up” because you made a stupid comment saying that the TCP/IP model is an implementation of the OSI model. Which is a nonsense claim that any basic course on networking would disabuse you of.
Also no “arguing”. Everyone except you was having a very civil and engaging conversation.
If anyone’s “trolling” here, it’s you.
Side note: rule 2: be nice.
Uhh, no, not really. That literal comparison was my attempt at explaining to you why the two are not equivalent models since you seemed confused about why I would say that. Normally, I’d just stop at “OSI is a theoretical model that exists but was never practically implemented, TCP/IP is used instead.” Because honestly I thought that was fairly self-explanatory. It’s kinda 101-level stuff in networking courses at uni.