Talk:Computer networking internetwork protocols: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Singular?: new section) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
If there is no special reason for the plural ("protocols") this should be moved to "...protocol". [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | If there is no special reason for the plural ("protocols") this should be moved to "...protocol". [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Plural was deliberate. It's been my experience, especially in teaching, that people focus on IP alone, rather than the utterly necessary additional protocols (see note above). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:17, 9 December 2009
|
| Metadata here |
This is very, very stubby
Noel, my initial thought is to have IPv4/IPv6 here, as well as routing protocols, ARP of various sorts, discovery ala IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, ICMP, and maybe DHCP. This would be a good time to consider your ideas about a shim below internetwork. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:27, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
Singular?
If there is no special reason for the plural ("protocols") this should be moved to "...protocol". Peter Schmitt 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Plural was deliberate. It's been my experience, especially in teaching, that people focus on IP alone, rather than the utterly necessary additional protocols (see note above). Howard C. Berkowitz 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)