Talk:Computer network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the Federal Standard 1037C, which, as a work of the United States Government, is in the public domain.
"Bus" network topology This article is part of WikiProject Computer networking, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Computer networking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Computer networking Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Computer networking To-do:

Contents

[edit] Page creation...

I created this page because it was a redirect page to computer networking, which is the science of computer networks not the computer network itself - I tried to write this page from the viewpoint of what a computer network is and not from the viewpoint of what computer networking is since they are two different subjects. Also, it seemed inappropriate that someone would have to search through a large article about computer networking with more advanced topics in it just to find out what a computer network is. -- Tmlewis000 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Computer networking is just a dial up connection with in the systems—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.210.11.22 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-19T06:05:23.

More specifically, one very primitive way to create a computer network is by using dial up connections between the systems. But what does this have to do with page creation? Riick 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See: http://www.networkingboards.com

I noticed that the same topics are discussed in the two different articles (computer network and computer networking) and, what is worse, in different ways. For example, in the current article, we have PAN, CAN (does this definition really exists?), MAN and WAN network types. In the computer networking article, there is LAN, WAN, WLAN and WWAN. Which one is right? I think that the same information must not be repeated in different articles. --Ale murakami 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Image...

I used the same image that is on the Network topology page because I don't have any images of a computer network but I'll try to find a small photo or something that is in the public domain. --mlewis000 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for calling the experts...

I'm adding a request for the experts to the top of the page.

  1. The article is awash with buzzwords and concepts from times past, and they are alongside current buzzwords and concepts with no line drawn between them.
  2. Concepts are explained incompletely or inappropriately.
  3. Items in lists that do not belong.
  4. Straight up inaccuracies.

I will of course help out as time will let me. Porkrind 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article still has way too many technical terms for such a broad subject area. I think we should try and reduce the amount of times the article references the OSI model along with some other more advanced terms such as circuit switched networks, that kind of works fine in the main articles for a network switch, but here, it just clutters the simplicity of what this article should be (IMHO). This article seems to have grown very unwieldy and difficult to understand, it lacks a real direction as far as formating, language, and style of writing (much too technical). If no one objects, in the next couple of weeks, when I have time, I'm going to hack away a lot of the fluff. Sorry to anyone who's stuff I might edit away... --Pchov 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


I can help also -cmdeane


any person help me i done hardware & networking from jetking...im hazy wht can i do...my id is jas_annu@yahoo.com


I edited the article, but it is still definitely a stub. Will return to it later, if I have time. 38.100.34.2 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article still has way too many technical terms for such a broad subject area. I think we should try and reduce the amount of times the article references the OSI model along with some other more advanced terms such as circuit switched networks, that kind of works fine in the main articles for a network switch, but here, it just clutters the simplicity of what this article should be (IMHO). This article seems to have grown very unwieldy and difficult to understand, it lacks a real direction as far as formating, language, and style of writing (much too technical). If no one objects, in the next couple of weeks, when I have time, I'm going to hack away a lot of the fluff. Sorry to anyone who's stuff I might edit away... --Pchov 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] some editing started.

Hello group. I've started some editing and still in the process. Please go through it. comments are welcome. :) Also, if you have any ideas, go to www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ and give me a note :). --Electron Kid 10:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] static & dynamic IPs

I removed the section about static and dynamic IPs. It was extremely lengthy and much to advanced of topic to be included in this already confusing article. IP addressing is not a basic component of Computer Networks, it is an addressing scheme used in TCP/IP Networks specifically. Although IP networks are very prevalent in todays networks, I do not believe it needs to be addressed in this article. --Pchov 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article shouldn't really be going deeper than osi layer 2 on the technical side. Good call. Porkrind 21:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major overhaul

I felt this article had too many complex topics that were being discussed for such a broad and basic subject. I hacked away much of the extraneous stuff and did some major rearranging:

  1. I completely removed some sections that were, although related to computer networks in one way or another, do not belong in this article and added them to the See also section. (Standards Organizations, Communication Techniques, Modes Of Data Transmission, Transmission Errors)
  2. Made a section for the debate over if two interconnected computers would be defined as a network.
  3. Rearranged the article from top to bottom based on relevancy
  4. I am absolutely amazed that this article didn't have a good explanation of a LAN! wtf?

--Pchov 22:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good show, Pchov. Sometimes it takes a good spring cleaning to reawaken an article so messy that noone wanted to take it on. Porkrind 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Under "Basic Hardware Components" only Network Bridge was tied to the OSI model. Either all the Basic Hardware Components need to be tied or none. I think it would be better to have all of them tied to the OSI model so I made the changes. Perhaps it would be better to create a Networking Hardware OSI table instead. Perhaps such a table would fit better under the OSI Model page with a link from here. This is the 1st article I have edited, but with some guidance I would be happy to help. Assuming that is the direction the group wishes to go in. Dap263 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the OSI Reference Model itself makes no references to repeaters, bridges, routers, tunnels, and application gateways. As opposed to the Internet model, in which routers are pervasive in architectural discussions, the OSI Reference Model is about end system to end system communications. Supplemental OSI documents, such as the Routeing [sic] Framework and the TR10000 Functional Profile discussion of generalized relays, and perhaps the Internal Organization of the Network Layer, do deal with them, but I'd be far more prone to tie discussion to IETF and IEEE models, not OSI. It's hard for me to stress strongly enough that real-world networks, even using ISO protocols, are not built around the simple 7-layer model, yet we continue to have great confusion caused by the overuse of the OSI model in introductory network education. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am doing some research for some certifications and this exams love to make OSI model questions about hardware and protocols and tie it to the OSI model. Hence my editing. I agree with what you said FWIW. Dap263 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Certification test writers, unfortunately, love to ask questions that are easy to write and score, as opposed to having much to do with reality. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article has really lost it's direction. It either needs to be written as a highly technical article, or it needs to be more encyclopedic. We need to decide on a direction, this article has become unwieldy to edit and difficult to read. Do we want a technical description of Computer networks, or a simple and basic article which directs users who want more detailed information to appropriate articles? Right now I see it starting out as a basic description and then at random it dives into highly technical areas loosely related to computer networks (i.e.: dealing with power failures). I want to make some major changes, but before I start chopping away large sections and offending people, I would like to see a discussion on two topics: 1. What direction do we want with this article? 2. What would be considered relevant to Computer networks in general? Pchov 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direction?

This article has become a juggernaut of an article. It has no direction. Who should this article be written for, the novice computer user, or a Network Engineering student looking for more in depth technical specifications? As of now, it's a mix of the two extremes. I think a good model to go by is the wiki article on Computers --Pchov 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant topics to be included

Computer networking covers a broad area of disciplines from communications theory to electrical engineering. We can't possibly include everything about all the subjects and hardware related to computer networking, the article would grow to a massive size. We need to have a discussion about what to include and what can be left out. The major topic areas I think are necessary for this article include, Definition/classification, Types of networks, and some of the basic hardware. I do not see any need to go beyond a basic description for any of these sections, anything more should be directed to the main article for that particular topic. Technical details such as IEEE and ISO specifications are very well documented in many of the topics main article, I see no need to repeat them here. I also just noticed there is no History section. Computer networks have a diverse history dating back many decades and it would be a shame not to include that in this article. --Pchov 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Indeed, I see this as a problem across quite a few articles on networking. In some of the books on networking that I've written, I start by drawing a magic cloud, and asking the sponsor to explain what kinds of users and servers are at the edges. To me, the starting point in networking is trying to establish what problem the network is trying to solve. Things like security, quality of service, scalability in terms of numbers of users and their geographic distribution (affecting routing, LANs, and mobility), and required level of availability aren't made very basic points here.
When designing, I need to know the requirements before I can decide which spells to cast on the magic clouds, and which daemons I need to summon. As the resident wizard, though, the summonings are my engineering problem. To draw an analogy to this article and the ones on network technology, this article, ideally, should deal with the problems that networks solve and the constraints that particular applications and requirements (e.g., high fault tolerance) impose. Other articles should address the summonings, or, in calmer terms, the nature of the technologies inside the cloud. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I might add that the sources and references need to be rethought. For example, the Federal Standard 1037 glossary, probably because it is public domain and online, is used a good deal. From my perspective, I worked on 1037 in the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee around 30 years ago, and I don't believe a lot of updating has gone into it.
In like manner, while textbooks or study guides for certifications may be readily available, they are, at best, secondary sources for many concepts. The primary sources are things like (easily available) IETF documents, and harder-to-get-free ISO/ITU documents. These, however, frequently, but not exclusively, deal with the magic inside the cloud, rather than what the cloud is to do. Still, some RFCs, especially things like Applicability Statement or Requirements RFCs, do consider the problem being solved. The Benchmarking Working Group (BMWG) does state ways of characterizing performance, with RFC 2544 as the starting point.
There is a shortage of references for requirements analysis and design. My colleague, Priscilla Oppenheimer, has written a second edition of Top-Down Network Design, which is excellent. See my user page for things I have written, and the www.nanog.org presentation archives for requirements aimed at ISPs and other service providers. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switches

When I see the persistence of the marketing term "switch", as opposed to the more specific "bridge", "router", or higher-layer device, I keep shaking my head. Because switch is so ill-defined, it generates much hand-waving.

To stay at a high level, "network interconnect device", which is used generally in RFC 2544, serves the purpose of suggesting that the "information highway" has "interchanges", without getting into the frustrating and confusing discussion of layering. Most layering discussions, in any event, are forced -- they try to coerce protocols not designed against the OSI reference model to fit neatly into a layer, amputating random limbs that won't fit.

Unfortunately, there are too many articles, such as computer network, switch (network), switch (multilayer) that try to be technical without a solid foundation. I did major overhauls to things such as "router", but I'm not sure where to start with some of the articles that base themselves in generalities or marketing terms. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix Grammar so I Can Read Please

Notice this:

Hubs Main article: Network hub

A hub contains multiple ports. When a packet arrives at one port, it is copied the packets to all the ports of the hub. When the packets are copied, the destination address in the frame does not change to a broadcast address. It does this in a rudimentary way, it simply copies the data to all of the Nodes connected to the hub. [2]

"It is copied the packets to all the ports"? Does that mean "All the packets are copied"? "It does this in a rudimentary way"? What does what in a rudimentary way? Thanks --Sukkoth 10:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fundamentalt bajs(bias) problem

this article is completely oriented towards packet switched networks, making no mention of the concepts of circuit switched networks. it also does a lousy job of handling anything besides desktop PCs; to an ATM network admin, "switch" is hardly a marketing term. my digital cordless telephone with two or three handsets? it's a star-topology computer network. Most computer networks run on cat-5? I doubt it; my home has about twenty feet of cat 5, a wireless LAN, and several thousand feet of DSL line to the telco. Most of the content here should probably be shunted to an article with a more specific name. -- Akb4 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the library LAN will make you happier, since VoIP is virtual circuit switched, possibly connecting to a POTS circuit switch.
I do not agree "switch" is anything but a marketing term. The generic term for all layers is network interconnect device, L2 interconnects are bridges, and L3 interconnects are routers. If "switch" means anything in the real world, it is a device optimized for IEEE 802.3 connectivity, and usually does not have all the WAN-related features of something sold as a router. If you think "switch" is used other than in marketing, please find an RFC that defines it. You won't find such a definition in RFC 1812 or RFC 2544, which should be the authoritative documents.
I agree that in your network, not everything is Cat 5. Branching stars, incidentally, are a common way to scale all but the smallest networks; I tend to call them tree-structured rather than star. The DSL, however, is not part of your network, so yours is Cat 5 and IEEE 802.11 wireless. My home and office network happens to be all Cat 5, although we occasionally turn on wireless to test a customer's wireless network. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPod Touch

can you set up a network with an ipod toch and a desktop (Windows xp). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.97.74 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By scale

Quote from the QoS link: "Quality of Service, abbreviated QoS, refers to resource reservation control mechanisms rather than the achieved service quality. Quality of Service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow." I think it is important to be careful with this term, since it is so easily misinterpreted. It is an activity, not a result, and while QoS can be implemented to provide a desired quality of service in regards to one or more particular parameters, the quality of the service is still just small q quality of small s service. I'd pick a different phrase to avoid the confusion that is inevitable with this term. Eleven even (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on external links

I understand that Wikipedia isn't intended as a collection of links, but I think that the following page is quite suitable for further reading. It describes the multitude of components found on LANS. Thoughts?

It's pretty basic information. The same information is covered by this (Computer network) article and some of its subarticles, particularly local area network and router. It might useful as a reference for a sentence or two, but I don't see it as a standalone external link. —EncMstr 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Storage Area Networks

I would suggest the author to include SAN (Storage Area Network) in the 'types of network' section. Otherwise this article remains to be incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.9.154 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)