Zlaxer wrote:@TC - you are confusing the TCP/IP stack with the term "Internet".
stupid data link layer...
When you are talking to someone who has dealt with hardware and software protocols... got to be a bit more clear I guess. STAR Protocol, IP, IPX, AppleTalk... how far back do you want to go?Zlaxer wrote::FACEPALM: dude....those are layer 2 protocols ...well expect for Serial RS232....the next layer down, layer 1, would be ethernet....The Conservative wrote:Depending on the layer...Zlaxer wrote:There are other protocols out there besides IP.....IPX for one....Serial RS232 for another...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol
The Conservative wrote:When you are talking to someone who has dealt with hardware and software protocols... got to be a bit more clear I guess. STAR Protocol, IP, IPX, AppleTalk... how far back do you want to go?Zlaxer wrote::FACEPALM: dude....those are layer 2 protocols ...well expect for Serial RS232....the next layer down, layer 1, would be ethernet....
Yes, I understand that, but what I am pointing out that as we migrate to the new servers, the older ones may or may not be allowed to play ball... also as I was saying originally the reason for "Internet 2.0" (and if you noticed, I almost always put it in quotations...) is that we were running out of IP addresses... or would be by a set time. It wasn't for speed originally, it was more security based and also to expand the ability of adding more people to "Internet 2.0" without worrying about any form of limitation... for the foreseeable future. Speed was a side effect...Zlaxer wrote:The Conservative wrote:When you are talking to someone who has dealt with hardware and software protocols... got to be a bit more clear I guess. STAR Protocol, IP, IPX, AppleTalk... how far back do you want to go?Zlaxer wrote:
:FACEPALM: dude....those are layer 2 protocols ...well expect for Serial RS232....the next layer down, layer 1, would be ethernet....
?
My point was is that there is not such thing as "Internet 2.0".....the OSI model is the best way to visualize the internet, or any communication system.....most of the Internet as you know it runs on the TCP/IP stack.....new protocols come out within the TCP/IP stack...but the Internet remains the same - its just a bunch of networks connected to each other...
The Conservative wrote:Yes, I understand that, but what I am pointing out that as we migrate to the new servers, the older ones may or may not be allowed to play ball... also as I was saying originally the reason for "Internet 2.0" (and if you noticed, I almost always put it in quotations...) is that we were running out of IP addresses... or would be by a set time. It wasn't for speed originally, it was more security based and also to expand the ability of adding more people to "Internet 2.0" without worrying about any form of limitation... for the foreseeable future. Speed was a side effect...Zlaxer wrote:The Conservative wrote:
When you are talking to someone who has dealt with hardware and software protocols... got to be a bit more clear I guess. STAR Protocol, IP, IPX, AppleTalk... how far back do you want to go?
?
My point was is that there is not such thing as "Internet 2.0".....the OSI model is the best way to visualize the internet, or any communication system.....most of the Internet as you know it runs on the TCP/IP stack.....new protocols come out within the TCP/IP stack...but the Internet remains the same - its just a bunch of networks connected to each other...
This is the reason I was brining it up, not dealing with protocols, etc... but the reasoning behind why it happened in the first place.
Had to leave school because my son was born, my wife was put on bed rest and I had to get a job to be able to feed the family. I never went back... so for now I am as always self taught over most of my knowledge. For now I'm dealing with network securities and issues that old admins from the place I'm working at now left, improving data transportations, VNC connections, VPN, and cloud interaction between Google and MS systems, as well as dealing with about 100TB of loose data no one had backed up...Zlaxer wrote:Isn't TC a CmpSci undergrad?
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
