Priscilla I have a lot to learn from you (and others), and I mean that in all honesty. Thank you for being so patient and understanding. It's good to see the "real" you again. -Anil
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Priscilla Oppenheimer Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Does session layer protocol use IP address ? [7:28378] At 09:11 AM 12/11/01, anil wrote: > >Please stop sending messages about this topic > >(or any other topic) until you have done some real research. I'm sorry I was so hard on you. You're right that I don't have a right to tell you what to send. You irritated me because you kept sending links to wrong info and I misunderstood your motive for doing that. I gave more thought to NFS and the issue of wrong info everywhere. I stick to my guns that you have to dig deeper sometimes and investigate the messages that the protocol sends, the services it offers, the services below it that it uses, what problem the creators of the protocol were trying to solve, etc. Knowing (or investigating) some history helps. Sun developed NFS as part of their Open Network Computing platform in the late 1980s. The OSI model was already being used for what it's good for. NFS was designed to be an application-layer protocol that ran above a session-layer protocol and uses XDR at the presentation layer. This is not a good one to turn into an arguable issue. It's straight forward. Because it's a Sun protocol, I wasn't really sure if there was an RFC, but there does seem to be one, RFC 1094. I found it by searching on "NFS RFC" in Google. It was the first hit. Regarding the existence of session-layer protocols, there really are very few in the IP world. RPC is one. NetBIOS is one. AppleTalk has the AppleTalk Session Protocol (ASP), but when Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) runs above TCP, the session layer disappears. There is something called Data Stream Identifier (DSI) between AFP and TCP, but it doesn't do much. OSI did a good job of defining the session layer. Believe it or not, Cisco Network Academy materials describe it reasonably well and cover two-way alternating and two-way simultaneous relationships, etc. But then they categorized the wrong protocols as being session-layer protocols. OSI's definitions for the session layer are just academic these days. Even the protocols I mentioned, such as NetBIOS, etc. don't behave the way OSI said would!? ;-) Priscilla >I had no idea you were the moderator of this group. >My sincere apologies > >-Anil > ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13&t=28378 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
