Talk:Computer networking

این مقاله در دست ترجمه است لطفا حذف نشود. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariu al (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

تعدادی نکته

آیا این واقعاً باید نقطه هدایت مجدد اینترنت باشد؟ آیا شبکه های اتوبوس ها مطابق توضیحات ما هستند؟ آیا این نباید روشن شود؟

بنابراین ، تصویری از یک کارت شبکه با فاصله کانونی بسیار کوتاه وجود دارد که حتی تراشه را نشان نمی دهد بلکه فقط کلمه D-Link را نشان می دهد ، شرکتی که کد GPL را به محصولات خود سرقت می کند و نمی پذیرد با مجوز اجرا شود ، بدین ترتیب یک شر برای آزادی ، که ویکی پدیا بر اساس آن ساخته شده است ، گزینه مناسبی برای تصویر نیست. مکان خوبی برای صحبت در این مورد http://www.networkingboards.com است

Peer-to-peer

I'm adding to this. Delete if appropriate.

       Jondel|Talk

My stuff got deleted by a bro in my hood.

Peer-to-peer networking allows users to share files over a network without suffering the loss of control that may occur with other forms of networking. Peer-to-peer networks also have a higher probability of harbouring viruses and other malignant code, often diguised or placed in other files. Common peer-to-peer networks include KaZaA and Limeware, and the peer-to-peer file and printer sharing in Microsoft Windows (versions 4.x, a.k.a. Win32).

Commons link

It links to anything.--Gengiskanhg 23:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Layers

Shouldn´t the "switching" keyword sorted into layer 2!? NO it shouldnt

---

I was taught that the OSI model defines the follwing layers (in ascending order): Physical Layer, Data Link Layer, Network Layer, Transport Layer, Session Layer, Presentation Layer, Application Layer. I was surprised not to see that definition here; perhaps I am missing something? sam 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The OSI model is an abstraction of modern networking; the basic seven layers as commonly taught really does not describe modern architecture. While the Internet Protocol Suite better describes modern networking, it is still an abstraction rather than a rigorous design paradigm. Other models include the IEEE 802 LAN standards.

Switch is really a marketing rather than a technical term. See more precise definitions of network elements such as Router and Network Bridge. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Are a simple pair of linked computers a network?

If you have only two computers linked together, so that the pair are isolated except from each other, is that a network? It seems that our definition on this page includes that case, but I'm not sure I would have defined a network to include this case or that the common understanding of a computer network includes it. For example, consider two PCs connected with a null modem cable or a Laplink cable exclusively to transfer files. Is that a network?

Yes that is considered a network. A network does not mean its connected up with the internet or any larger WAN.

I came here from the "Protocol" disambiguation page, which defines "Protocol (computing)" as only applying to computer networks. chicken children If two PCs aren't a network, then this definition is faulty, since clearly there have been protocols designed for use between just two computers (e.g. the Laplink protocol). (I won't argue that modem file transfer protocols used on BBSes, such as Kermit, XModem, and ZModem, fit this bill, since it could be argued that a BBS is a star network, with dial-up exclusivity being the method of connection negotiation and collision avoidance at the hub. Then again, some BBSes had multiple lines.)

Computer network article

This article is more to the history of computer network. Somebody please write a few sentences of computer network's definition. Thanks for reading.

I second that. I searched for Computer Network, got redirected, then there's no definition of the term in the opening paragraph.

Now the term is there, would anyone mind me adding a bit more history? Just a bit?

Go right ahead buddy, I don't mind reading through stuff like this... It's interesting...

I wrote an article on 'Computer Network' that was previously a redirect page to computer networking. --mlewis000 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested sections

These really need to be included:

• Data transmission
• Error detection and recovery
• Flow control
• Network routing and congestion
• Presentation (layer) => data representation

• security
  • network cryptography
  • authentication/digital signatures
  • firewalss etc.

• social issues
  • privacy
  • freedom of speech
  • intellectual property

• network topology

• networking hardware

• standardisation

• media
  • guided transmission media
  • wireles networks
  • satellites

• quality of service
  • guaranteed packet delivery
  • time guarantees

• application layer
  • email
  • Domain name system
  • www

TreveX^talk 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the merge of Network Computing with Computer networking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Keep separate articles Trevj (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Network computing is a seperate, if related, beast to computer networking. The network computing article should focus on the computer, and the computer networking article should focus on networks themselves. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - two different subjects. Network computing is the process of distributing computing power over a network, while "computer network" is the network over which this process is distributed. Mugaliens 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.132.23 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History (packet switching)

This article says "In 1968 Paul Baran proposed a network system consisting of datagrams or packets that could be used in a packet switching network between computer systems." however the article on paul Baran says "Similar ideas were also being independently pursued by Donald Davies from the National Physical Laboratory in the UK and Leonard Kleinrock at MIT." Similar statements about co-invention are made on the Donald Davies and Leonard Kleinrock. Is there any reason why this article shouldn't recognise the contribution made by all three? --Philbarker 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No one gave me a reason not to, so I did. I've changed the date to be consistent with the history section of the packet switching article and with the account given in chapter 1 of Janet Abbate "Inventing the Internet" MIT Press, 2000.--Philbarker 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedic lists, merger of some material, new article at Computer_network...

I wrote a new article at Computer_network because the previous article at this location was a redirect to Computer_networking. I believe that the two subjects are different in that someone who is looking for information about a computer network would not necessarily be interested in the subject of computer networking (which is a more complex subject).

I am trying to clean up the unencyclopedic lists in Computer_networking, moving subject matter that is directly related to an increased understanding of what a computer network is to Computer_network. This should make room in Computer_networking for more advanced topics directly concerned with computer networking. However, I am not an expert at computer networking so will probably leave the rewrite of computer networking to someone who is more knowledgeable than myself (The topics suggested by User:TreveX might be a good starting point :-). --mlewis000 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Computer networking vs Computer network

I've started a conversation on User_talk:Johnpseudo regarding his claim that "article is about computer networking, not the profession of network engineering", which is at odds with other editors feeelings. Anybody wish to weigh in?

I also agree that there is a difference between computer network and network computing, although I prefer distributed computing for the latter. Indeed, computer network really is a subset of converged IP networks providing voice and video as well as data.

I would agree that this article does not cover the separate disciplines of network engineering, computer science networking research, and network administration. This article, while it needs much work, has quite enough to be covered before getting into the human skill sets. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Workgroup

Workgroup redirects here, but there is no mention of workgroups in this article. Could someone fix this? —Dmbrown00 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have got here from Windows Server domain. There is link to Workgroup their thats redirects to this article, but there is no mention of workgroups in this article. Could someone fix this? Alexsmail 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Workgroups and other logical groupings defined under views of computer networks. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Discipline of Computer Networking =

The article speaks of computer networking as a form of engineering, but never addresses the actual engineering skills involved. I believe there should be such a section, which covers both the true engineering level of network & protocol architecture & design, as well as network administration. Some attention would need to be paid to common industry certifications. "Network engineer" is often associated with people who are really network administrators and high-level support technicians, but the common industry certifications may demonstrate enormous knowledge of administering certain vendor projects, rather than the theory-based practice of network engineering. Some people, of course, are highly qualified both in network engineering and network administration, but they are really different disciplines. A great protocol designer may not be a great troubleshooter, and vice versa.

Comments? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

www.netforu.org

This site is very usefull content.Please add the external links to this page.

How is a link to this site useful for the article? Ahy1 12:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this link reappear several times after being removed for a lack of detailed relevance, as in a reference to the text. In a recent reappearance, the date in my signature was changed. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As has already been noted at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Sequence of problematic edits from different but similar IP addresses, the entire site is a bad rip-off of stuff from the Cisco site. We don't link to copyright violations from Wikipedia. --Pak21 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Added information

I added references that used external links, if anyone feels they should not be there feel free to remove them. I have added/moved/changed a good deal of information and spent a good deal of time doing so. I hope everyone agrees with my links and changes as this is my first substantial edit :)

LadyAngel89 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good contributions, although I would suggest avoiding tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, Answers.com, magazine glossaries, etc. Look for the places where these have been originally defined, or at least discussed in a serious technical content rather than a web quick reference Howard C. Berkowitz 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I can and will do that certainly although when speaking of sources from the internet it's hard to find sources of original documentation for subjects relating to computers and networking. So I went with the obvious (to me) second tier that should be pretty well established as factual source material. I only have resources to use the internet as a research tool at the moment, but I will definately look harder and see what I can find and update accordingly. Thank you so much for taking the time to look over my edit. Edited to add: What would you consider to be non tertiary sources? Any web resources at all or simply reference books and physical material?

LadyAngel89 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this question last month.

It's not the Internet per se, since the Internet Engineering Task Force does its development by mailing lists, file transfers, and some web pages. In other words, for the IETF and some related groups (Internet Research Task Force, North American/European/Asia-Pacific/Latin American/African address registries and operational engineering forum), Internet publication is the primary source. Research institutions like www.caida.org primarily publish on the Internet.

There is a reasonable secondary level of the non-marketing literature of the major communications vendors, which, in the case of things like Cisco's Internet Technical Journal, get pretty close to peer-reviewed primary literature. Technical presentations and white papers, especially those that are multivendor or at least cooperative, are somewhere between secondary and primary. For years, the best IPv4 subnetting tutorial was by a 3Com engineer. You'll see people from Cisco and Juniper and Extreme and Nortel and such putting out research results, and these may be in the context of experimental networks. CERN, the European high-energy research center, is responsible for a great deal, including invention of the Web.

Where I think things are sliding into the far secondary and tertiary are in the certification cram guides, the sales-oriented literature, and some (even printed) textbooks. Websites in the education business vary a lot. Some are just come-ons for paid courses. Someone like Pete Welcher, however, writes some of the best tutorials in the business. I'm going to be putting up some of my tutorials Real Soon Now. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible new content

The following text has been moved here from Windowing which has been converted to a disambiguation page. I think it should be merged into this article rather than discarded, but I don't know the topic well enough to do it capably. Could someone here handle this?

Windowing in computer networking means the quantity of data segments which is measured in bytes that a machine can transmit/send on the network without receiving an acknowledgement.

Part of the flow control process, windowing determines the amount of data that can be transmitted at one time, before the destination responds with an acknowledgment. After a host transmits the window-sized number of bytes, the host must receive an acknowledgment that the data has been received before it can send any more data. For example, if the window size is 1, each byte must be acknowledged before the next byte are sent.

I will include a link to this article on the new Windowing disambiguation page. Thanks. SlackerMom 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that this detailed behavior, which in this case is specific to TCP but variants are present in other protocols, belongs in the "computer networking" article rather than in an article, or series of articles, on protocol mechanism. This text is a good, but not fully updated, writeup of the flow and error control mechanism of TCP. LAP-B, for example, does not have the adaptive window size mentioned here, although it does have windowing with batched acknowledgements. RPC, as far as I know, retransmits but always uses a window size of 1.

A continuing problem, among the networking articles, is the level of detail that should be present in a given article. I haven't looked recently at the TCP article and am not sure if it covers variants like the LFN and very high speed variations, large initial window size, and other experimental or at least specialized mechanisms.

Do we need a general article on windowing, error detection, and error control? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered this

Datapoint was amongst the first comanies (if not the very first) to make networking readily available on a commercial basis. They invented Arcnet, which whil very slow, was still th first commonly available mechanism people could reliably buy and use.

Relation between Data communication, Computer communication, Computer networking, Data transmission and Digital communications

I have tried to relate these terms to each other in the Data transmission article, especially in its lead. Any comments are helpful. Mange01 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs major work

I'd rate this article at the Start level. This is a large and complex topic, and the information included is quite incomplete.

I'd also decrease it's importance by 1 notch. Although networking is very important in some disciplines, I wouldn't classify it, for example, as equal in importance to the initial steps in developing the understanding and use of electricity or to the invention of the transistor.

I think the distinction between computer network and computer networking is artificial, unclear, and too specialized for these terms to be treated as separate topics in WP.

The photo at the outset is a poor choice as the only photo. It is outdated (might be ok in the history section) and it represents only one kind of network hardware. More photos are needed (which is widely true in WP).

This would be a good place to include a subtopic on Network Architecture, or at least there should be a link to a Network Architecture article.

There should be more detail on a few of the most prevalent network architectures.

Some kind of discussion of network security issues and methods should be included.

Wcmead3 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

network

Bridges work at OSI model —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.87.115 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

network

Bridges work at OSI model layer 1 layer 2 layer 3 layer 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.87.115 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I would like to suggest this article be renamed Data communications. The goal is to create some distance between this article which I gather endeavors to describe the discipline and methods and Computer network which describes specific technology. I propose Computer networking will redirect to the renamed article. --Kvng (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Computer network merge

Computer networking and Computer network seem to cover the same ground. We should either merge the articles or figure out exactly where one stops and the other begins. I would prefer a merge. --Kvng (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a merge. The two articles are extremely similar and I think that computer network is the more fundamental topic, and so computer networking should be merged there.Rememberway (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Two different inflections of the same term, essentially. Would prefer this over "data communications" since that seems a slightly more dated term. We already have telecommunications for the more encompassing field that includes phone networks etc. Now a separate question that seems to have been debated above, is if a separate article on the engineering field is needed. I would favor having computer network be the resulting article, since it is the "root" term. But not adamant. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Data communications is usually point-to-point, whereas networking is about creating n>2 networks.Rememberway (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Might be showing my age, but the original "computer networks" consisted of n=1 computer. The single computer in the middle would be connected to some or many terminals in various ways (usually a star or tree) or even remote job entry stations connecting to a central computer in star topology. But generally in modern terminology of course I agree. Anyway the network -> networking merge is fait acompli. Thanks. Perhaps some day "data communicaton" might be split out, but other work probably higher priority for now. W Nowicki (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)