Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move
SdotLow wrote: » So BGP and RIP are themselves applications???
creamy_stew wrote: » Let's say I have "hub" router with static routes pointing the networks in my organization to the proper next hop. Every 10 minutes or so, I have a script that pushes route changes to this router via tftp. This is certainly completely transparent to the end user. Is that,then, a L3 function?
networker050184 wrote: » The end user doesn't, but someone configures them, apply policy etc. The same way you interact with any other application. Its really a debatable question. Some people say application, some say network. RIP for example uses UDP for communication. Does that make it an application? Guess its up to interpretation.
MrRyte wrote: » The only time that a person would interact (either by console or telnet)with the routing protocols is when they are configuring them or troubleshooting them. Otherwise; they are supposed to be working behind the scenes ensuring the correct routing of packets.
SdotLow wrote: » It would be as much of a L3 function as manually typing it in through Telnet would be. The user is still setting up the application to alter the router through application layer protocols. A static route changing on a router isn't a routing protocol, I wouldn't think.
Turgon wrote: » But UDP is connectionless transport layer 4, so is a routing protocol a transport layer mechanism? jk OSI layers can become blurred and a lot of fun to be had with the circular debates!
networker050184 wrote: » Where would you put LDP on the OSI model? Not trying to be difficult, curious what your opinion is on that?
SdotLow wrote: » I've read that they get blurred from interaction, from say layer 2 to 3 in a switch or what have you. But how does it get blurred from layer 3 to 7? I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around what I'm missing here. Forsaken had me thinking I wasn't crazy but then Turgon jumps in and mixes it up again.
SdotLow wrote: » I would say that a even if you're using telnet to configure a router, you're not interacting with a layer 3 protocol so to speak. The protocol is what it (the protocol) does, propagating routing tables and assigning packets to x/y/z route.
Turgon wrote: » Lots of opportunities to blur higher up too. Coders The TCP/IP Guide - OSI Reference Model Networking Layers, Sublayers and Layer Groupings 'In some areas, the layers are so closely related that the lines between them become blurry. This is particularly the case when looking at the higher layers; many technologies implement two or even all three of these layers, which is another reason why I feel they best belong in a group together. One important reason why the distinctions between layers five through seven are blurry is that the TCP/IP protocols are based on the TCP/IP model, which combines the functions of layers five through seven in a single, thick layer.' Sorry to mess with your head!
networker050184 wrote: » The routing protocol does not assign packets to routes. All the routing protocol does is exchange the information and run it against a best path selection algorithm. The forwarding process then uses that information to actually route the traffic.
CaySpekko wrote: » To really understand the OSI stack you need to understand network programming. One of the reasons for the OSI model to help programmers and manufactures have a model to follow when implementing network interactions, so that networks are interoperable without to much proprietary configuration. OSPF and RIP advertisements and hellos are at most encasulated into a layer 3 packet, then the packet is pushed into the MAC layer, where it's encapsulated with a mac header, then pushed on the physical wire, then to the other router, when de-encasulates the mac, sees the ip header, strips that off. The data left over is sent straight away to the OSPF process without transending other network layers (the router knows it's ospf because it came from multicast 224.0.0.5 and 224.0.0.6). At most it uses layer 3. Sure the OSPF software running on the router is an application, but it's application is internal to the router, and not used in the network stack layers 4 5 6 or 7. Telnet, is used to test all the way upto layer 7, and this is a good test question. If telnet is successful, then you know the entire 7 layer stack is working properly. The flow is somewhat as follows: Application: The application will request to the OS that it needs a socket for communication over the network. Presentation: the telnet app determines that it's going to send data over the link using plain text, probably using an array as a data structure. Session: Telnet argues with the other end and establish a method for communication, the actual datagram isn't modified in this layer, but the app will send communication requests out of the socket, and wait for a response back, before it tries to forward data. Transport: telnet uses TCP port 23 the layer 4 datagram encapsulates the raw telnet data Network: IP addresses encasulate the layer 4 datagram (it's all part of the ip header) Datalink: mac address encapsulate the layer 3 packet Physical: the mac frame is sent out the wire as bits Even if you run OSPF on Windows Server, it'll listen on 224.0.0.5 and 224.0.0.6, and send the data from the IP packet straight to it's OSPF process, and doesn't have to do all the higher layer networking stuff.
SdotLow wrote: » You didn't look very hard. You could have gotten the answer on Wikipedia. An application layer protocol is something like Telnet, HTTP, or FTP. Something communicates with an application, so to speak. OSPF and RIP are never seen by an application, or the application layer. With that being said, you're posting in the CCENT/CCNA forums about a very easy question that can be found in your study book(s). I'd suggest looking there.
hiddenknight821 wrote: » You got to be joking. It's a silly debate and you're asking us for help?! This is not some tag-team wrestling. Looks like both of you need go back to the books and review on OSI layer.
MrRyte wrote: » And HOW EXACTLY does the end user interact or use RIP, OSPF or any other routing protocol? I think that the answer is obvious....
CaySpekko wrote: » Sure the OSPF software running on the router is an application, but it's application is internal to the router, and not used in the network stack layers 4 5 6 or 7.
MrXpert wrote: » I'm surprised at your answer considering you're a ccent and i am not. is it such a silly debate? then why so many posts about it? I personally tend to question things when different sources say different things.Looks like I am not the only one needing to rehit the books as you suggested
networker050184 wrote: » Good explanation CaySpekko. What are your thoughts on something like BGP or LDP that does establish connections etc? Thanks for the input!
Chris_ wrote: » I think forsaken has hit the nail on the head. The OSI model is a conceptual framework intended to assist in the demarcation of processes involved in communications. It is always going to be open to interpretation. My own opinion is that routing protocols are applications that exist to facilitate the functions of layer 3. In my mind anything that processes and exchanges information that has payloads encapsulated within tcp/udp headers is leaning towards being an application (I know this doesn't apply to OSPF or eigrp but there us still a layer 4 exchange of sorts within the ip encapsulation) Please don't attack me
alan2308 wrote: » And I hate to start another debate, but OSI is more than a conceptual model. Cisco IOS still routes clns and family in 12.4 and perhaps later.
Key Concept: It is just as much a mistake to assign too much importance to the OSI Reference Model as too little. While the model defines a framework for understanding networks, not all networking components, protocols and technologies will necessarily fall into the model’s strict layering architecture. There are cases where trying to use the model to describe certain concepts can lead to less clarity rather than more. One should remember that the OSI model is a tool, and should be used accordingly.
networker050184 wrote: » Damn Chrome spell checker! And no worry, not heated here. I think its a great discussion with valid points from both angles. I'd say they are an application because they are a purpose built software used to fulfill a need for people. We could always static route everything right? Or do all of the SPF calculations manually and input the routes ourselves, but why? We can write an application that can do all of that for us. Hence routing protocols as applications that are ran by a router. And whats the first application listed here? TCP/IP model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
alxx wrote: » But if a router is a layer 3 device doesn't that make the protocols and applications it uses also level/layer 3 ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing) "A router is considered a Layer 3 device because its primary forwarding decision is based on the information in the Layer 3 IP packet, specifically the destination IP address. "
instant000 wrote: » OSI is a model, not a requirement. The key thing you're supposed to take from it is that it is a modular structure, designed to aid developers, and also to help you understand how networking works. A lot of apps were designed for the four layer TCP/IP model, and don't have discrete functions that easily separate to each of the 7 OSI layers (This is especially problematic on the upper layers) With regards to layer 7 apps being degraded to layer 3 because they end up going across a router, then by that same measure, everything can be reduced to layer 1, as it goes across the interface/wire. We're over-analyzing this. Several of us have commented that it's only a "model" and not a strict requirement that things fall neatly into. I'd like to think that IT peeps like myself work at Layer 9. (Regular users work at layer 8, LOL.)
Compare salaries for top cybersecurity certifications. Free download for TechExams community.
