Talk:TCP/IP model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).

Quality of English[edit]

Someone who speaks English natively really needs to sort this article out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Please note that with technical material any editing wades into the area of Technical Writing. One way to look at the two versions of this topic is that one is more function-oriented in its description, while the other is more operationally or system-structure oriented. The topic Internet Model might benefit from taking a more formal functional perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

General Cleanup Needed[edit]

I added two tags tonight: copy-editing, and confusing-or-unclear

Additionally: e - the article may need structural clean up as most of the intro should be it's own section, or may be repeated in later sections.

- Slant - "IETF", the presiding technical body over TCP/IP is referenced 12ish times. 9 of them are in a negative context. This worries me.

- Expert-Needed - Some of the facts seem fuzzy, and discussion-page sub-titles seem to bring them into question. Perhaps an expert should be consulted.

Overall, it's clear this article has been pieced together by engineers, not English-majors. There are plenty of 'minor' grammar, tone, style problems but they quickly add up. Some bias slant is detectable. An industry-expert and a professional editor could probably make short work of this heavy-cleanup. (alas, I am neither..)

On a broader view - sections of the article seem to debate view-points on the subject matter rather than concisely and authoritatively presenting the subject. Also, article spends alot of time on what TCP/IP is NOT, and what the IETF does NOT allow when it mentions them at all. I did not make it to the part where the article explains what TCP/IP is.

For example the entire introduction debates whether TCP/IP should be taught as a layered model or not, and says nothing about TCP/IP! (1st who-cares, 2nd why in the intro?)

I'm overtired and overstepping the bounds of my knowledge but the intro could go something like this. In fact it probably needs nothing more - anything else should be in a later secton. (Note: this is for example, I can't personally vouch for the factual-accuracy here.)

The TCP/IP Model is sometimes called the Internet Reference Model, the DoD Model (DoD, Department of Defense), or ARPANET Reference Model. Written in the 1970s by DARPA (an arm of the American DOD), it is a high-level design document for computer network protocols. It laid the foundation for ARPANET, the worlds first Wide-Area-Network, which eventually grew up to be the modern day internet. While technology has advanced considerbly, the TCP/IP model still lays the foundational structure for the modern internet.

Simply put, TCP/IP defines how two or more computers should communicate over a network. This includes how such communications should be packaged, addressed, shipped, routed and delivered to the correct destination. It creates the framework for more specific standards and protocols, which define specific types of communication between computers. These protocals are also said to fall under the TCP/IP Model.

The model is generally taught as being a four-layer model; or five-layers if you include the bottom physical layer. This concept is primarily based on the seven-layer OSI Reference Model, written long after the TCP/IP specs and is not offically recognized. Regardless, it makes a good analogy for how TCP/IP works and the comparison is common.

The TCP/IP model and related protocols are currently maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IETF is a "large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet."

-- (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) SP

OK -- I've had a go at copy-editing the above introduction, which I think is much better than what the article has at the moment. I have no in-depth knowledge of the subject, so apologies in advance for any mistakes of fact.
On a general (pessimistic!) point, I think this article is a prime example of where Wikipedia fails at the moment: an important technical article that is baffling and dominated by secondary technical issues.
The TCP/IP Model is a specification for computer network protocols created in the 1970s by DARPA, an agency of the United States Department of Defense. It laid the foundations for ARPANET, which was the world's first wide area network and a predecessor of the Internet. The TCP/IP Model is is sometimes called the Internet Reference Model, the DoD Model (DoD stands for Department of Defense) or the ARPANET Reference Model.
TCP/IP defines a set of rules to enable computers to communicate over a network, specifying how data should be packaged, addressed, shipped, routed and delivered to the right destination. The specification defines protocols for different types of communication between computers and provides a framework for more detailed standards.
TCP/IP is generally described as having four 'layers', or five if you include the bottom physical layer. The layer view of TCP/IP is based on the seven-layer OSI Reference Model written long after the original TCP/IP specifications, and is not officially recognized. Regardless, it makes a good analogy for how TCP/IP works and comparison of the models is common.
The TCP/IP Model and related protocols are currently maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Sam Dutton (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's good, I like it. It's much more concise and readable than the current intro. Indeterminate (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked it a bit. Sam Dutton (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK: I've changed the introductory text. It would be great if someone with more TCP/IP knowledge could check it. Sam Dutton (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz - 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[edit]

On a broader view - sections of the article seem to debate view-points on the subject matter rather than concisely and authoritatively presenting the subject. Also, article spends alot of time on what TCP/IP is NOT, and what the IETF does NOT allow when it mentions them at all. I did not make it to the part where the article explains what TCP/IP is.

I agree completely that there is too much about how TCP/IP is not OSI, but that is due to the history of the article; it has improved significantly since I first saw it. Unfortunately, many beginners to networking get an introduction from an obsolete view of OSI. For months, I've been removing references that marginally refer to OSI as ISO (i.e., not basic tutorials) understands it, and that also try to force-fit TCP/IP into OSI.

For example the entire introduction debates whether TCP/IP should be taught as a layered model or not, and says nothing about TCP/IP! (1st who-cares, 2nd why in the intro?)

I agree completely. The IETF, which, as you point out, is the authority, has architectural documents that argue against strict layering. Just in the last few days, however, there's been an argument about the layering of routing protocols, and, when I offered both authoritative documents and personal experience (in writing some of those documents), what came back was an argument.

I'm ... overstepping the bounds of my knowledge but the intro could go something like this. In fact it probably needs nothing more - anything else should be in a later secton. (Note: this is for example, I can't personally vouch for the factual-accuracy here.)

Believe me, I feel as frustrated, and, with no false modesty, am speaking within the bounds of my knowledge. There's just as much misinformation, due to marketing usages, of such things as "switch" rather than "bridge", "router", or a combination. There were a few cases where an editor insisted a device worked a given way and that it was an (undefined) "switch" rather than a router inside, because the product name, for historical and marketing reasons, was switch. In one of the cases (Nortel 8600) I was among the designers, and for some Cisco devices, I was involved in the IETF work, the Cisco product testing, and reasonably accurate education on it.
There's no simple answer. Personally, I have gotten tired of the never-ending arguments based on incorrect information, and am considering giving up editing networking articles; it's too frustrating.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

SP - December 17th, 19:45:00 (EST)(GMT-5)[edit]

There's no simple answer. Personally, I have gotten tired of the never-ending arguments based on incorrect information, and am considering giving up editing networking articles; it's too frustrating.

Wow! NO IDEA I was stepping into a firestorm. But maybe glad I did!
I don't understand what there is to debate here? If we already have a resident expert who helped design this stuff - only another equally ranking EXPERT would be qualified to make real technical arguments. Howard, you should not allow yourself to be bogged down in such meaningless arguments in life. It's not worth it. If you know your stuff, show it, and move on.
I'm tempted to say just write the damn article and email it to me. I'll edit and revise it. If someone wants to argue, we will appeal to wikipedia, and it will be out of our hands.
I'm not an expert in this topic but I have a sufficient technical background and can be a decent writer when I try. I've taken a sudden interest in this subject matter, and the chance to work with someone who was actually there - it would be cool.
These topics should not be up for debate.
One-Day-Link (Contact-Info)

-- (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC) SP

Previously this article was called DoD model.

DoD model[edit]

Pardon me, but what has this to do with the American Department of Defense? I am confused and angry for unspecified reasons. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps because it was developed by DARPA, which is an agency of the Department of Defence? Bryan 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

DoD modelTCP/IP model — "TCP/IP model" is less US-centric, as per User:Mange01; Internet protocol suite isn't specifically about the model, so TCP/IP model shouldn't go there. Guy Harris 08:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support. More familiar title. Peter O. (Talk) 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time for another move?[edit]

The opening paragraph now speaks of the TCP/IP reference model rather than the TCP/IP model - the TCP/IP reference model page is a redirect to TCP/IP model, but, with that change, it sounds as if the primary page should be called "TCP/IP reference model" with "TCP/IP model" being a redirect to it. Unfortunately, there's no "swap" operation that lets any user exchange a page with a redirect to that page, so, to make that change, we'd have to request another move by an administrator; should we do so? Guy Harris 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Google gives more hits on "TCP/IP model", so I reverted my change of the opening paragraph. Instead I added "Internet reference model" as an alternative term. That solves the problem. A move is not necessary. Mange01 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The title is all wrong -- TCP/IP is how the Internet protocols were called in the 1980s, but is no longer appropriate in the Internet age. Also, the Internet model never was a reference model -- this is a flawed analogy by people who do not understand why OSI needed a reference model and the Internet didn't (RFC 871 from September 1982 was the last RFC that argued for an OSI-like reference model -- then called "Arpanet Reference Model"; since then, all architecture documents such as RFC 1958 have quickly stated they don't try to be reference models). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

easier fit for real-world protocols?[edit]

How is this model an easier fit? Given that the next paragraph tells us there is no single version of the model with different numbers of layers, I fail to see how this makes it an easier fit Markb 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

layers all wrong?[edit]

I may be missing something, but how can RIP, which layers over UDP, be lower in the network stack than UDP? Also IPSec, ICMP and IGMP are over IP. ESP is a sibling of TCP/UDP etc. the only protocols listed there that should be at layer 3 are IP, ARP and RARP (which isn't even strictly it's own protocol, but an extension to ARP), e.g only those protocols that have a frame type number in the Ethernet header.. Layer 4 should be protocols that have their own protocol number in the IP header e.g.: TCP(6), UDP(17), ICMP(1), IGMP, ESP, IPIP, GRE.

L2TP is over IP, and PPTP uses a TCP connection (port 1720) for control channel and GRE for data tunnel, so most definitely isn't at the Data Link Layer below IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:23, June 21, 2007

With the caveat that I have never seen on an IETF mailing list, or heard in a serious discussion at an IETF meeting, any particular concern about the layer in which a protocol resides, it is the function of a protocol, not how it is encapsulated, which defines the layer at which a protocol resides. Even in formal OSI protocol work, routing protocols are assigned to the network layer by the Management Framework and the OSI Routeing Framework, as layer management protocols.
L2TP, which most people would say is a layer 2 protocol if they had to assign it, runs over UDP over IP.
Layering is a guide that doesn't always work with real-protocols. I'm mystified, incidentally, why the graphic shows five rather than four layers for this model. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I second that, I used this information in an Exam and I failed because of it... I didn't consider RIP as an Application Layer protocol. You should check out what the standards say and maybe look a little over the Cisco CCNA's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MieZu (talkcontribs) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Five-layer model[edit]

I quite seriously propose that the five-layer stack drawing, which is not authoritative by any IETF document, be replaced with a four-layer stack consistent with RFC 1122. As far as I can tell, the basis for the five layer argument are only secondary sources, such as Stallings' book.

As long as I am being bold, I'd like an agreement to put strong words in the introduction to this article that it is not OSI-compliant, there is strong historical reason that the designers of this stack did not intend it to be OSI comppliant, and that people experienced in using and teaching this stack find that one of the chief barriers to understanding the most widely used stack in the world is that they are trying to force it into an obsolete OSI model. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that a four-layer stack makes more sense and would be more appropriate... however, I think it's important to keep an article (or part of an article) on the five-layer model, if only because it's so well-known. If you want to create an article for the four-layer model (or maybe better, just expand this article), I think it would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like you might just be interested in replacing that awkward TCP/IP Model template, which is actually maintained over in the Template area: Template:IPstack. It looks like they've been arguing on the Talk page about the number of layers to include for quite a while. :)
Either way, I approve of both your proposals. Indeterminate 07:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to clone this over at the Template area, but I've become frustrated about making any headway over here, because of loud and unsupported arguments that there is a five-layer model. I'm puzzled by the need to keep an article on the "five-layer model", which does not exist in any IETF documentation, but explicitly defines a four-layer model (RFC1122), and explicitly speaks against strict layering in several statements of architectural principles. ISO does not ever define a five-layer model; ISO started with a seven-layer model in ISO 7498, and then added sublayers in several documents. It does not exist in any IEEE document, which deal only with the bottom two layers and sublayers. These, I believe, constitute the primary sources on networking architecture and layering.
Further, it does not exist in any training material from Cisco, Juniper, or Nortel, and, as far as I know, Microsoft. The major vendors arguably are the chief secondary sources of de facto rather than de jure concepts of layering.
It exists, as far as I can tell, in some textbooks, and in Wikipedia. I've published textbooks myself, and I have asked a number of colleagues who are also networking book authors, and they never used the concept. If one makes use of the sublayering of IEEE or ISO, even ignoring the reorganization of the upper layers by ISO, one might get:
  • 9 layers: OSI basic model plus IEEE sublayering of LLC/MAC and (two layers, but by different names in different documents), medium independent/medium dependent, or PLS/AUI in the original Ethernet documents.
  • 11 layers: OSI plus the additional two layers of the Internal Organization of the Network Layer, plus the additional layers in IEEE 802.1 mentioned just above.
  • 7 layers, IETF plus IEEE, taking the three layers from internetwork on up, and then two two-sublayer models below it.
  • 9 layers, using the three sublayers of the ISO IONL, and the two sublayers of IETF in the bottom two layers, plus IETF end-to-end and application.
In the real world, however, all of these tend to break down when considering protocols that use recursion to create tunnels, such as L2TP, IP in IP, IPSec, MPLS (with arbitrary numbers of stacked labels), 802.1q-in-q, ATM LAN Emulation, etc.
I appreciate your comment, and will try to bring this to the template talk page. Unfortunately, I don't know how to create a revised template and propagate it, and, unless there is first some consensus that no authoritative reference uses five layers, it doesn't seem worth the effort if some people are going to keep citing a textbook or two that, as far as I can tell, is the only source. Howard C. Berkowitz 09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As a networking instructor, I sure would appreciate switching to the 4-layer model. Students get confused when looking up TCP/IP and finding a hybrid 5-layer model that is referenced nowhere in their materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion and note a mistake in the content of the TCP/IP model page[edit]

I'm going to be brief. There are only 4 layers in the TCP/IP model, you have them all right i think besides the network and data link part. Those two are in the OSI 7 layer model. The network layer is called the Internet layer in TCP/IP and the physical and data link layers are fused together in the TCP/IP model and are just called the physical layer. BTW the DoD has everything to do with the TCP/IP model...since they you know...created it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The URL for reference 2: "Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end to end arguments vs. the brave new world,D. Clark & M. Blumenthal, August 2000" is a broken link ("Page not found") There appears to be another copy of this document at the following URL:

Can someone confirm that this is correct and fix the link? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The link was fixed by the time I got to it. Indeterminate (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote: Four and/or five layers in the TCP/IP model template and wiki articles?[edit]

Give your vote here. Should the TCP/IP model template have four or five layers? And what is the name of the bottom layer in case of four layers? And is it okay to mention both the four and five layer models in wikipedia articles? Mange01 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of OSI Model to TCP/IP Model[edit]

I find it strange that I do not have a single University/College level textbook on computing that compares the OSI Model to the TCP/IP Model. Maybe I'm just too old to have the right texts, but I think that we will need citations for the statements comparing the models. Does someone own book where they can dig citations for the comparison from? — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There are so many. Why not search in Google books? I made a quick search for TCP/IP and OSI at Google images. Some interesting examples that I found were:
  • From Swedish wikipedia. Made by user:itpastorn. Notice the position of ARP and RARP, suggesting that TCP/IP Internet layer does not go as deep as the OSI network layer.
  • [1] Notice that Internet transport layer also includes part of the Session layer.
  • [2] Combination of the two above.
  • [3] Here the OSI session layer is almost completely mapped to the TCP/IP Transport layer
  • [4]
However, almost all of the images that I found shows this simplified mapping:
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8] Notice that the "TCP/IP model" has many sublayers here.
  • [9] Shows that application programs are above the application layer. I would say that the application layer may be part of the application program.
Mange01 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please incorporate this into a template or post an image into this article and the OSI model? I don't know how to upload images or jump through the Public Domain hoop. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The slash[edit]

It should be mentioned that the slash means "over". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

I propose to merge the articles TCP/IP model and Internet Protocol Suite. Please keep in mind that this is a suggestion from my side, and that these articles shouldn't be merged if there are good reasons not to do so.
Here are my reasons for a merge:

  • Internet Protocol Suite states: "The Internet Protocol Suite (commonly known as TCP/IP) [...]".
  • TCP/IP Model states: "The TCP/IP model, or Internet Protocol Suite, describes a set of [...]".
  • Both articles use the same viewpoint (i.e., technical viewpoint) on the topic Internet layering. They both use the same diagrams for explanations.
  • Both articles feature a section Layer names and number of layers in the literature with identical content.

If you feel these two articles should not be merged, then - before removing the merge templates from both articles:

  • please give reasons on this talk page,
  • please improve both articles and explicitly mention in both articles what the differences between TCP/IP model and Internet Protocol Suite are
  • please move duplicate content which is irrelevant for one of the articles to the other article
  • please give others time to comment on your comments

Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support the merge. There is so much overlap. However, the article should clarify the difference between the two terms. Mange01 (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What I think actually needs to happen here is we need to delete most of the content about the model and layering from Internet Protocol Suite article. Internet Protocol Suite should perhaps be reworked into WP:SUMMARY format and point to the important protocols in the suite and to the model that shapes it. --Kvng (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. To my eyes, both articles are covering the same ground. I do find this article more WP:USEFUL than Internet Protocol Suite, perhaps because the first section is Key architectural principles (rather than History), and it doesn't stop to explain what a router is. However, I'm not certain how to separate the two in an encyclopedia-suitable fashion. Ignoring WP guidelines (WP:FORK, WP:SUMMARY and WP:USEFUL for a start), I imagine one article optimized for networking students seeing frequent references to the layers in which things operate, another article for news reporters and others needing lots of background–obviously that cannot be the only organizing principle.
      Perhaps the best way to make Internet Protocol Suite more comprehensive is to make it into a well-linked summary article, with TCP/IP model focusing on the layer model. I like Kvng's suggestion for this reason. / edg 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is true that the articles are quite similar; but the topics have fundamental differences. The protocol suite is a set of rules for structure interactions. The model is the layered approach. Layering is a very important aspect of the architecture of communications protocols, and it can be viewed as a set of foundational rules for the design of the protocols. (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merge, they are very related, is better to have them in one clean, on shot find article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the merge. It's not much of a model anyway. — Dgtsyb (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as Dgtsyb is right, it is used as a model, and TCP/IP model should cover this aspect, and this aspect only: The description of the layers, and the model's application in technology and education. It could also do with some criticism. The Internet Protocol Suite is a protocol stack. It does not have layers, it just has protocols that appear to fall into layers of certain reference models, and that together are supposed to provide full network functionality. Btw, {{OSI model}} is totally bonkers as it does not describe the OSI model but the population of the OSI model with protocols from the TCP/IP protocol stack. --Pgallert (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A good idea to merge it in a section of TCP/IP. Sae1962 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Internet Protocol Suite exists as a description of the current model of worldwide networking, a practicum that does not always fit the OSI theoretical model used in education. The TCP/IP model is clearly1` a subset of the Internet Protocol Suite and as such should be included under the Internet Protocol Suite, and TCP/IP model redirected to Internet Protocol Suite. "TCP" is irrelevant to many network and internet functions or runs contrary to Wikipedia's goal of encyclopedic description. "IP Suite" also describes related network structures using 802.3 data packet format. This CANNOT be described as a subset of TCP/IP model. "iSCSI over IP" would not make sense to include in tcp/ip framework. Consider too that for many years the Internet was not "tcp/ip" or even an IP network. Shjacks45 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds (as I see them) that TCP/IP is part of the suite, not the other way around. As I understand the subject this suggests something akin to making Rock a subsection of Punk or USA a subsection of Texas. -- FG/T|C 02:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but since this discussion has been going on since December 2009 without a consensus emerging, I am going to delete the notice about a possible merge from the top of the main article. We can continue to discuss the wisdom of a merge here and put the notice back if and when we seem to be making progress toward actually doing a merge. Jeff Ogden (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

The content of the article Internet protocol suite is a duplication of the scope of this article, TCP/IP model. Please place discussion in one fo the relevant threads below. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for merger[edit]

I have proposed merging the content of Internet protocol suite into TCP/IP model. The material appears to be a complete duplication of effort. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You should use mergeto and mergefrom tags on the two articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for final disposition of Internet Protocol Suite[edit]

Redirect to relevant article[edit]

My guess is that the original author was intending to create a jump-off point to all the Internet related protocols. Redirect could be set to

Anyone have a preference? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Establish new scope for article[edit]

any thoughts here? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Opposition for merger[edit]

Someone like me claim: Whether "Internet protocol suite" can not survive without "TCP/IP model"? It can survive! There is opposition to the merger. Instead merging, it's better the correct information to be put on the correct place. If its about Internet... here, if its about TCP?IP then there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I implemented the merge. -- Beland (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)