| 02:13.10 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypants (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 02:13.10 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypants] by ChanServ |
| 02:35.51 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypants (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 02:35.51 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypants] by ChanServ |
| 03:16.24 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypants (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 03:16.24 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypants] by ChanServ |
| 03:38.11 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypants (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 03:38.11 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypants] by ChanServ |
| 11:41.52 | *** join/#uphpu DexterTheDragon (~DexterThe@oalug/member/blackchaos) |
| 11:41.52 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v DexterTheDragon] by ChanServ |
| 13:57.07 | *** join/#uphpu eggyknap (~jtolley@50.109.210.171) |
| 13:57.07 | *** join/#uphpu eggyknap (~jtolley@unaffiliated/eggyknap) |
| 13:57.07 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v eggyknap] by ChanServ |
| 14:54.44 | *** join/#uphpu clintberry (~clintberr@205.197.215.90) |
| 14:54.45 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v clintberry] by ChanServ |
| 15:07.34 | *** join/#uphpu clintberry (~clintberr@205.197.215.90) |
| 15:07.34 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v clintberry] by ChanServ |
| 15:08.49 | *** join/#uphpu clintber_ (~clintberr@205.197.215.90) |
| 15:18.00 | *** join/#uphpu josephscott (~josephsco@192.0.125.251) |
| 15:38.43 | *** join/#uphpu bbankes (~bbankes@50-200-100-242-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) |
| 15:45.30 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypants (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 15:45.30 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypants] by ChanServ |
| 15:47.40 | *** join/#uphpu herlo (~herlo@c-98-202-75-22.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 15:47.40 | *** join/#uphpu herlo (~herlo@fedora/herlo) |
| 15:47.40 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v herlo] by ChanServ |
| 16:18.03 | *** join/#uphpu mgeary (~mgeary@75-144-8-210-utah.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) |
| 16:18.03 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v mgeary] by ChanServ |
| 16:26.23 | *** join/#uphpu mgeary (~mgeary@75-144-8-210-utah.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) |
| 16:26.23 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v mgeary] by ChanServ |
| 16:48.58 | *** join/#uphpu bbankes_ (~bbankes@50-200-100-242-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) |
| 16:51.14 | *** join/#uphpu mindjuju_ (sid66062@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ilxgbcdasmeyijkz) |
| 16:51.14 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+o mindjuju_] by ChanServ |
| 16:52.54 | *** join/#uphpu herlo_ (~herlo@c-98-202-75-22.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 16:53.18 | *** join/#uphpu stevecoug (~stevecoug@oalug/member/stevecoug) |
| 16:53.18 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v stevecoug] by ChanServ |
| 16:53.48 | *** join/#uphpu herlo (~herlo@fedora/herlo) |
| 16:53.48 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v herlo] by ChanServ |
| 17:36.19 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v clintberry] by ChanServ |
| 18:13.42 | mindjuju | howdy all, quick question |
| 18:14.09 | mindjuju | i've seen SSL as Layer 4 and I sometimes see it as Layer 5 |
| 18:14.19 | mindjuju | so which is it? |
| 18:17.06 | herlo | are you talking about the network layers? Like OSI model? |
| 18:17.21 | mindjuju | hi herlo, yup OSI |
| 18:18.24 | herlo | http://ccna-routingswitching-ciscochamp.netai.net/web_images/-3.jpg does this help? |
| 18:19.02 | mindjuju | i've been wondering if I should switch to the tcp/ip model |
| 18:19.13 | herlo | mindjuju: it's not a either/or thing |
| 18:19.20 | herlo | It's what is implemented. |
| 18:19.41 | herlo | So SSL in OSI is probably layer 5. But in tcp/ip it can't be higher than layer 4, right? |
| 18:20.13 | josephscott | then there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_OSI_layers |
| 18:21.06 | herlo | and see, I think SSL would be layer 6 in the OSI model anyway. |
| 18:21.21 | herlo | so I'm not sure how it would ever be considered layer 5. |
| 18:21.55 | mindjuju | see, this is why the gears start falling out of my head |
| 18:22.03 | mindjuju | so many different ways to look at things |
| 18:22.11 | mindjuju | it *could* be here, but seems right there |
| 18:22.47 | herlo | why does it matter? |
| 18:22.56 | mindjuju | so josephscott , i've actually been referencing that as it's been a couple years since networking class |
| 18:23.19 | mindjuju | herlo, i'm presenting on general networking to GDI:Provo and wanted to be accurate |
| 18:23.33 | josephscott | my memory is that OSI was only ever a model, there were no strict implementations based on it |
| 18:24.29 | mindjuju | you know though, maybe yall are right and i'm going too deep |
| 18:25.07 | mindjuju | which is something i was trying to avoid already as I was just looking at some background so we could start talking about fun tools |
| 18:29.34 | herlo | mindjuju: ahh |
| 18:30.07 | herlo | josephscott: I think there was a reference implementation, but it never made it onto the network stack iirc. |
| 18:31.53 | herlo | and tcp/ip follows the OSI model in some extents at layer 4, it just didn't care about specific separation, which made many things easier to implement. |
| 18:32.07 | herlo | mindjuju: what's the purpose of sharing this model? |
| 18:32.49 | herlo | I mean, you can make reference to them both, but is there any real value in going into detail about how OSI is different from TCP/IP? You could just talk about how OSI came first, show a little model and then say it was never really used and TCP/IP won out. :) |
| 18:33.44 | mindjuju | to demystify the internet, to show how one layer builds on another and they all combine to provide a really reliable system |
| 18:34.50 | mindjuju | then when we talk about problems with the internet, we have a framework to explain where the tools come in to fix |
| 18:35.23 | herlo | right. So my point holds. |
| 18:36.28 | herlo | Just discuss the layer, so the differences and move on. If they want to dig into it on their own, there's a ton of detail. Anyone can grab a book from the library or visit wikipedia on their own time. Probably best to not get caught up in the details too much. |
| 18:36.34 | herlo | s/so/show/ |
| 18:36.38 | mindjuju | yup |
| 18:36.44 | herlo | :) |
| 18:40.04 | mindjuju | i should be finished here in a little bit and will pass the link so yall can once over |
| 18:49.26 | herlo | sure thing |
| 19:35.20 | fungus | Matching up protocols to layers above 4 is academic, at best. Not truly useful to someone learning how they work. |
| 19:36.20 | fungus | Learning the basic idea that network communication works in layers at all is important, but getting into specifics at that layer is too detailed. |
| 19:36.27 | *** join/#uphpu josephscott (~josephsco@192.0.125.251) |
| 19:36.34 | mindjuju | fungus: i think you're right |
| 19:36.38 | mindjuju | too deep |
| 19:37.10 | unum | I think it's useful to explain that it works by sending electrical impulses |
| 19:37.29 | fungus | Example. SSL sits on top of TCP, in most cases, but it doesn't usually serve the purpose as a Session layer. It's really just another Transport layer. |
| 19:37.41 | unum | the DOD model might be more useful because it is simpler(plus used by the internet) |
| 19:38.03 | mindjuju | unum, i was going to bust out with Shannon's Theorem, but not enough time ;) |
| 19:38.12 | mindjuju | jk /me gets back to slides |
| 19:38.22 | fungus | Now OSI Layers 1-4 are quite specific and well defined. |
| 19:38.32 | mindjuju | see, that's where i was getting confused fungus |
| 19:38.49 | mindjuju | is where exactly it sat, and at best it seemed to sit inbetween the layers |
| 19:42.45 | fungus | An example that fits better with the purposes of the layers, might be XMPP at layer 5, XML at 6, Chat at layer 7. |
| 19:44.57 | fungus | but again, all academic. not truly useful. |
| 20:38.32 | *** join/#uphpu stevecoug (~stevecoug@oalug/member/stevecoug) |
| 20:38.32 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v stevecoug] by ChanServ |
| 20:50.58 | *** join/#uphpu bradym (~bradym@173-228-86-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net) |
| 20:50.59 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v bradym] by ChanServ |
| 21:02.32 | unum | I don't think any of my coworkers share my love for small cheap computers |
| 21:02.45 | unum | oops wrong channel |
| 22:06.59 | *** join/#uphpu ninnypan_ (~ninnypant@unaffiliated/ninnypants) |
| 22:06.59 | *** mode/#UPHPU [+v ninnypan_] by ChanServ |
