Talk:Computer network/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

static & dynamic IPs

I removed the section about static and dynamic IPs. It was extremely lengthy and much too advanced to be included as a topic 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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


Article quality

I stumbled across this article by chance and found the quality rather bad. The introduction made no sense. It mentioned OSI and TCP/IP models, apparently preferring TCP/IP model, but it spoke of classification by network layer operating. But TCP/IP only has one single way to operate a network, namely IP by definition, so how can one classify other networks this way? I rewrote the intro as a general statement as what to expect from the article. Kbrose (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)aver cyber cafe

I agree the article maybe not great but it is C class by the assessment scale. it does not meet b standards because of what oyu meantioned but is way above start class. The importance is a hard one to judge, because what do you define as more important ina computer and not.--Andy (talk - contrib) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

it is updated to Gaurav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.161.120 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 

Information technology portal

v • d • eThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. 

C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. 
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer networking (marked as Top-importance).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.230.247 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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)
I say it be better used as a ciation assume it pass a realible source rather thana external link but it could be used as one.--Andy (talk - contrib) 16:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering our manual of style

Wikipedia:Manual of style#Section headings: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article." Should we ignore this rule? Go half way? What?

I seek to wonder, with you, if the new-to-this-subject and old alike could appreciate what Types of area meant, and what Local, Campus, Metropolitan, Wide, Global, and Private meant from the table of contents at the top of the article.

The main reason I ask is because I believe I understand section naming as a complex system, with explicit, naming guidelines, and that section naming has as a significant effect on an online encyclopedia as does the encyclopedia's WP:outline and its WP:category systems, because section names can be directly linked from other articles, and because changing the section name later then kills links. This makes section titles a more involved and deeper structure than changing an outline or category element of the overall structure.

We are equally future-blind to the way links will form the category and content links. Outlines, on the other hand, tell us what will be. I believe section names are a kind of wiki-wide outline that we make that should guide future editors as to how things should be. Section naming is outlining the article, and more: it has the same effect on the article as it will on future editors—the entire wiki—because of their freedom to interlink subsections. By following some carefully thought out guidelines we can effect a future structure that does not have to be continually reworked. The only other option that I can think of is to explain that editors should refrain from linking to sections that follow don't follow the naming guideline, because they might there link might die when the target is renamed later.

My vision of efficiency compels me to say all that. In the particular case of Computure networks and it's naming structure, I further ask that the following ideas be granted admission:

We don't have to use the field's terminology in our section names, but we are duty bound to report in our textual content precisely and strictly what the notable world says, and how they say it. We have an even more important duty though to carefully consider section names because they are future links for our organization. The way way Wikipedia is now, we're still setting up the basic outline. Ergo, I am here believing that the outline we choose today will influence the rate of the efficiency of content addition and content linking tomorrow.

Our current section-naming guideline would produce the following, stunning revelations that were, in section 3, at first impression, objectionable to me, but I quickly got used to them as a wiki thing: 

    * 1 Introduction
    * 2 Classification
          o 2.1 Connection method
          o 2.2 Scale
          o 2.3 Architecture
          o 2.4 Topology
    * 3 Types by area
          o 3.1 Personal
          o 3.2 Local
          o 3.3 Campus
          o 3.4 Metropolitan
          o 3.5 Wide area
          o 3.6 Global
          o 3.7 Private area
          o 3.8 Internetwork
          ... <snip>

Note: The term area at 3.5 and 3.7 suffixed the most general adjectives, but not those easily associated with some noun. "Wide what?" and "Private what?" are valid questions, but "Campus what?" is not, etc. It's computer networks!

May our opinions meet no urgency in the answering, but find the importance of consideration nevertheless. Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters, and I look forward to a leisurely discussion. — CpiralCpiral 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Improving The Article

Friends i think this article requires lots of improvement and i am ready to be a helpful had for this article. But first we must have to decide that what we want this article to show.Regards to all --Sandeep (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Sandeep, and I am going to start with a couple of changes:

  • Campus Area Network is not a usual term. We refer to Campus network for a network that spans across buildings and are interconnected privately (i.e. with the use of telecoms transmission network).
  • Internetnetwork is not a term that can be applied to Enterprise Private Network where a company set of remote sites (LAN's) are inter-connected via a WAN. An internetwork is an inter-connection of private networks that are not solely owned by corporation, univeristy or government etc.

Ludovic.ferre (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another overlap

I also ran across data transmission which is a bit odd for a topic name, since normally one wants to receive data too, not just transmit it? It puts itself ino the Category:Local area networks which is also odd, because other kinds of networks also transmit their data. There is even a Category:Data transmission which has Category:Computer networking as a subcategory. There is also a Data transmission circuit which is just a cut-n-paste of a definition. Odd that Data communication redirect here, but data transfer and digital communication go there. Digital Communications System goes to GSM but never explained in that article why. Digital Communication Receiver goes to Demodulation, which might make sense, but the captial letters seem not to style. W Nowicki (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of data transmission. I've watchlisted it. Not sure how best to improve things. I'd encourage making some changes and we can see how they look. --Kvng (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Network security */ english edit, some probably extraneous text moved to discussion page

"Networks can be private, such as within a company, and others which might be open to public access. Network Security is involved in organization, enterprises, and all other type of institutions. It does as its titles explains, secures the network. Protects and oversees operations being done."


seems pretty vacuous. If we really need to explain this, requires rewording I am not up for just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

C Class change

Teapeat - That was just a typo. I'm afraid I have no idea how that happened. Thanks for fixing!!! Maura Driscoll (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Computer Networks and Internet Technology

Computer Networks and Internet Technology is an outline covering topics in this article and possibly also Internet. I'm not sure what's salvageable but I don't see much reason to keep Computer Networks and Internet Technology separate. -—Kvng 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how to determine what else links to that separate topic? I don't know how to do that yet. I'd be curious. Maura Driscoll (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Virtually nothing links to it: [1]Teapeat (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It also gets virtually no hits, probably for the same reason: [2]Teapeat (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would completely agree, it needs to be merged.Teapeat (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Teapeat (talk · contribs) 2013-03-25. Thanks! -—Kvng 14:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wish list for Computer networks

I would like to see this topic migrate into B-class article. However, I think the number of unreferenced statements in the piece, as is, make it very difficult for individual technical contributors to add updated information with references. I know referencing the statements would be a major undertaking, and more than one person can or should do. I wonder if there is a way to collaborate to have this done for this piece? I am new to Wikipedia, so comments welcome about that. Maura Driscoll (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Under History:

"Many of the social behaviors seen in today's Internet were demonstrably present in the 19th century and arguably in even earlier networks using visual signals.[further explanation needed]"

I would really like to delete this line.
(I finally did trip across a place where this idea was fleshed out at length, somewhere under telecommunications. But it might serve this particular topic better if it was deleted - at least until some of the other unreferenced statements in the article can be referenced? - unless someone wants to give a citation and explain the intended meaning of this statement for the reader?)
OK to delete it for now?
Maura Driscoll (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Finally deleted it. Did add a link to the telecommunications topic last month, also. Maura Driscoll (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Backbone Network:

I would like to revise this section. But I have a question. I want to mention network servers. I was hoping to just link to the topic rather than explain, but the topic, network server, itself seems a bit out-of-date. I also noticed that servers are rarely mentioned in the Wikipedia articles related to networking. Any insights about that would be appreciated!
Also, would there be any objection if I renamed this to Network Backbone?
Thanks ... Maura Driscoll (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

History:

I created two separate bullet items for the two distinct pieces of network development covered in bullet 1.
- one dated in the 1940s involving teletypes
- one dated in 1962 involving the creation of TCP/IP and Arpanet
There was just too much going on in bullet 1, especially with the two different date contexts. The rest of the bulleted list seems pretty much sorted by date, so I hope this is more balanced. (BTW, I didn't really want to delete the phrase "the teletype was of interest", but couldn't find a good home for it once I separated the two bullets by date. I looked, but the Wikipedia topic, Arpanet, doesn't mention the tie-in to peripheral devices like teletypes.)
Maura Driscoll (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Done last month - no reverts. Maura Driscoll (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A little intro re-writing tonight

Reverting this edit is perfectly okay with me. I do think the intro needs to be refocussed if no one has the time to work the article content, though. My particular cut at it might not be the way to go - but I like the overall idea of it, which was to refocus the intro to match the content of the actual article as it stands today. The intro seemed to be going in a lot of different directions, but the article itself ended up being pretty focussed on dated local area network technology. That's not a bad thing - there just seemed to be a mis-match with the intro, that's all. I had hoped to have the time to match the article to the intro, at one point, but I'm afraid I don't, so I thought I would try to match the intro to the actual article. It's a good article, even if quite a bit dated, as long as the intro doesn't make promises it isn't keeping??? IMHO. Please feel free to rewrite or just revert. Thought I'd give it a try anyway. Thanks Maura Driscoll (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

PS - Does the intro really have to say this?:
Two devices are said to be networked when a process in one device is able to exchange information with a process in another device.
It sounds to me like, at one point, a full encyclopedic (is that a word?) treatment was planned for this article but didn't happen as such. This is a good statement, but I feel like it's in the wrong place. It seems too detailed for the intro, but unfortunately, the article doesn't really touch "application process" which is up in the TCP layers, and instead mostly stays focussed on the IP end of things. This is a very good statement, but seems in need of a different home, to me. Any thoughts on that??? Maura Driscoll (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition of ...

I am not necessarily thrilled with how the definition looks right now. But I like that I took some scattered pieces of definition and put them all in one place, so we can all work on it. It's almost like no one was quite happy with how it was defined, so people added their own definitions here and there in the article, under more focussed headings. I hope what I did today moves toward a better solution for the definition - I don't necessarily consider that this would be a good one as it stands this morning. My intent and hope is that if we put all the definition statements right at the top, all in one place, we will have a better chance of getting a really good one to happen! So ... I was "bold" today ... but in the spirit of inviting collaboration to get to a good solution. I think this can become a B-class article this year. I understand the definition is a bit tricky with Telecommunications as one article and Internet as another and Local Area Network as perhaps another (and one that needs work). Ideally, we could define computer network here and then point into these other articles, without overly duplicating what's under their Telecommunications or Internet? Such is the goal, whether done with collaborative editing or some Wikimedia techniques - however it can best happen. Let's see how the community responds to what I did today ... !!! But I definitely thought I would "talk" it, since I made changes that appear right at the top of the article! Maura Driscoll (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Computer networks are very definitely a type of (tele)communications network. These are all just different sorts of (tele)communications networks.Teapeat (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would have much argument with that, Teapeat. I certainly don't. Maura Driscoll (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold. I've done some smaller improvements. -—Kvng
Kvng - thanks for getting the location statement out of there. Technically incorrect. Was going to remove this weekend. It came from trying to be nice - trying to salvage someone's uncited stuff by incorporating it instead of wholesale deleting it. Trying to salvage uncited stuff is nothing anyone should have to do - it is time-consuming, produces poor results, and introduces errors, every time. Sigh.
Thanks for catching that!
BTW, I was disappointed that you removed a new contributor's statement about similar and dissimilar computers. I think it's a wonderful point, especially in the lead, and one that can be built on with cited material in the article itself. Sadly, I'm going to let it go and not fight for it, but I thought it was a wonderfully relevant point about the "computer" end of "computer network". I also thought it was especially cool to get a new contributor - my entire goal in being bold, myself, is to foster a welcoming environment for new contributors.
The amount of uncited material and the wikilinks leading to even more uncited material is an enormous problem in this article.
There is absolutely no point in going back and trying to cite stuff that the original contributors didn't even bother to cite themselves.
But moving forward with a lot of new contributors, in a welcoming editing space, where citation is much encouraged and where experienced wikipedians set the example by citing --- I think the article could be lifted out of its sub-B-class state if that happened, slowly replacing the uncited material with new, up-to-date, cited material. I don't know that I see another viable way to get this article to at least B-class, fwiw. I absolutely do not think it's reasonable to expect anyone to come along and cite someone else's uncited material, however, replacing the uncited material with cited material might work. Such was my thinking in being bold, fwiw.  ??? Maura Driscoll (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
PS - Finally catching up to my formatting mess here on the talk page (apologies - now fixed). Maura Driscoll (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Small proposal: "A computer network ... Data is transferred in the form of packets." This definition is too narrow. As the article briefly talks about, there are circuit-switched networks which do not transfer data in the form of packets. Proposal is to omit this phrase or reword it to be more general. 50.161.20.237 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) zach

Draft outline

There is a draft outline for the old name of computer networking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of computer networking if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computer network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"The internet is not a computer network" meme

If that's so, can somebody explain why when I google the phrase "The internet is not a computer network" I get just 4 hits, but when I google "the internet is a computer network" I get hundreds of thousands of hits, the top ones being from universities, that make the specific claim that it is, indeed a computer network. This seems to provide extremely strong prima facie evidence that kbrose has completely missed the point. GliderMaven (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You should recognize that this is not an intelligent query. It is very unusual to characterize or explain something by stating "it is not". For example, Wikipedia does not start articles with "A computer is not an analog device". The phrase may never even enter the description, even if one assumes that all computers are digital. Perhaps personal websites and blogs use such style occasionally, but nothing more serious. So you need to filter your search results appropriately to find reliable sources. Whether or not the Internet is a computer network, is in fact not a simple question to answer. The question and its answer need definitions and context, which is typically lost in most crowd-sourced opinions. Google search queries are not reliable references with nuanced definitions that one can trace to historical or technical reasoning. An encyclopedia also does not use usage counts as definitions, but it may cite such factors to provide additional context. WP should rely on reliable references, preferably from secondary sourcing to minimize biased primary definitions, which may have a higher degree of subjectivity. Notable computer scientists have pondered the question here asked, and I provided just one for my statement, while you have provided none. Your multiple reversals/reverts don't show clarity in your opinion either. My desire for "definitions and context" is poorly satisfied in this article, btw. Cutting out IP protocols doesn't satisfy any side, as even narrowly defined 'computer networks' clearly use IP without internetworking involved. The article is a hodgepodge of data networking topics lumped together which really doesn't offer any answers, just more questions. Perhaps the article needs to be renamed to data networking. Kbrose (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Telecommunications / edit warring

I noticed that there is a bit of edit warring related to the definitions in the article. I'm placing this here so that people can discuss the issues below rather than continuing to revert each other. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The situation does not change. The site is still under attack by telecommunications technicians who, contrary to any sources, confuse the computer network with the telecommunications network. Et4y (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to discuss the warring that you've started. That needs to end.
The text you changed wasn't improved and was reverted. That's complete OK, see bold-revert-discuss. You now need to point out why your text is better than the previous one. --Zac67 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You started the warring. Editing history shows that many users over the years have tried to improve the content of this page, and you delete these editions. First, computer networks are NOT classified as telecommunications networks. Et4y (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Judging by the page history, the consensus among multiple editors here appears to be that User:Et4y's opinion is in the minority. The history of networking also contradicts this, as computer networking had its roots in telecommunications, and bona fide telecommunications circuits provided the backbone for the interconnections between the earliest of intercommunicating systems in packet switching. The ITU was a sponsor and actor in major standardization efforts, c.f. OSI model. Finally, today's networking technology for telephony and computing could hardly be more congruent. The editor's opinion seems irrational, but he should support his opinion with reliable references, not with edit warring. Geek sites are not reliable references, and the verbatim copying of content from websites violates WP editing rules. Kbrose (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No, our opinion is not in minority. Only you are your (propably) multiaccount have a different opinion. On the page of the most known journal devoted to this area we can find a description: "The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking". There is Computer AND Telecomunications Networking. I hope you now understand what it mean. See also how work authority control and check computer network term classification, example: https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D4070085-9 Et4y (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Titles of journals, books, or articles cannot be used as a reference for the definition of a term, especially not your opinion about the meaning of the title. Moreover, the title does not suggest any separation of the terms, rather the opposite. It merely appears to suggest that computer networks are treated as a subfield of the larger class of telecommunication, and that the scope of the journal is very broad, which is supported by the type of articles routinely published in the journal. Kbrose (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Et4y:: Your first edit was challenged. Seeing not much room for salvaging or improvement, I reverted that edit. Per bold-revert-discuss, it would have been on you to discuss your proposal in order to find a consense. Instead, you reverted, starting an edit war which is generally considered destructive.
As to your verbatim copy from a non-WP:RS site: like user:Kbrose has patiently pointed out, you cannot copy&paste content from other sites due to copyright reasons. Also that site isn't an accepted, reliable source anyway. Also, you are in the minority here since two (senior) editors don't agree with your single point of view. --Zac67 (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not a break of copyright, but it shows that I do not invent definition by own, only it bases on reliable source. I would not be surprised if it turned out that Zac67 and user:Kbrose is one person. Et4y (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed to a neutral definition without categorization (I abandoned the "in computing" introduction). I hope you can consider it a compromise. The article has plenty of references to telecommunications, let them stay, but do not overdo it with the first sentence of the article. --Et4y (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Your prose is simply a terrible, inarticulate characterization that lacks essential elements of a computer network, the common technology which was mentioned previously, and which Tannenbaum and others deem paramount to defining a network. A computer network is also a telecommunication network. This has been true from the days of SAGE to the modern Internet, as prominently elaborated in the timeline of developments in this article. READ IT. Your representations are false. Kbrose (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
No, computer networks are NOT telecomunications networks. Computer neworks may by considered as information networks or computing networks, but NOT the telecomunications networks. Computer networks are DIRECT field of computer science. Et4y (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Computer networks are not telecomunications networks. First, they have a completely different nature and come from computer science, not telecommunications. GND Authority control classifies them as part of computing, not telecommunications: https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D4070085-9 (B) Similarly, scientific journals separate computer and telecommunications networks: (C) http://airccse.org/journal/ijcnc.html or (D) https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-networks - here we can see: "computer AND telecomunications networks". Other computer networks journals and websites also define computer networks normally, but not as a subset of telecommunications networks: (E) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/basics-computer-networking/ or (F) https://www.javatpo int.com/types-of-computer-network. ACM Classification also categories computer networks as direct subdield of cs: (G) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_Computing_Classification_System. In summary, all classification systems define computer networks as independent of telecommunications. The user of Zac68, against all sources, changes Wikipedia only according to his opinions, and he deletes references to sources. I belive you can do something about it, Regards -Et4y (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
None of these links can be considered as reliable references for the subject matter. Library catalog structures and journal titles do not explain topics. In addition, there is nothing in these that contradicts the fact that computer networks are a subclass of telecommunications. The fact that computer networks are also fields of computer science changes nothing. Of course that is true, and that makes sense. Many fields of computer science in fact had found their origin in telecommunication, including the entire world of Unix and Unix-like operating systems and their compilers, information theory, source code control systems, transistor technology, digital circuits, wireless networking, and the list goes on and on. You have not provided a single notable source for your assertion. Kbrose (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Full ack. Can't really add more insight to that. All the classic, early computer networks were telecommunication networks, SAGE, ARPANET, ALOHANET. I guess it's a matter of definition, but you can't really nail down "telecommunication network" all too precisely. --Zac67 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
They're both information networks as well as telecommunications networks. Any time you're transmitting information over a distance through a medium-that's telecommunications. Any time you have state machines, that's computation. The two are completely non mutually exclusive. Networking is multidisciplinary. GliderMaven (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of the outcome of the dispute here, the prose presented by the OP cannot be used as it violates WP rules of copyrighted content. Under no circumstance must it be reinstated. To accommodate the view of the OP to some degree, and because of the generally poor state of the article lead, I rewrote and refactored the lead in its entirety in a fairly generic manner for the time being. Kbrose (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for various claims. I believe that computer networks also have significant telecommunications aspects and can certainly be considered part of it. I'm finishing being a Wikipedia user, because it's too frustrating for me and I prefer to forget about it and not back anymore. Goodbye -Et4y (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Computer networks can be Telecommunication networks, or maybe not

A Telecommunication network is any network used to do communications, i. e. transport information; a set of pidgeons can be a telecommunication network. Please, do not be close-minded you both. If a computer network is used to interchange information, it is a telecommunication network and uses both corpus of knowledge; a network of computers designed to do distributed computations in a data center may not be considered a telecommunication network. Please, note the Technological convergence phenomenon, and how an electrical or electronical engenieer can come here and say "computer networks are electronical networks", and nor ones or others are right.

There are a lot of examples of computer networks used as telecommunication networks, and there is a lot of telecommunications networks that are not implemented using computer networks. Hence, there will be considerations related ONLY to the computer networks, such as the software considerations of an API-based arquitecture, and there will be considerations that are ONLY related with Telecommunications, such as the number of copper wires needed to provide 5 Erlangs of traffic. And, please, obviously the computer networks field had its origins in telecommunication networks, and they heritage a lot of concepts from them, the same that telecommunications engieneers own a lot of knowledge to thermionic valves experts...

Is it so dificult to explain this? --Albertojuanse (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Computer network vs internetworking

Once interesting thing that came out of this- it looks like people like Vint Cerf think that the Internet isn't a computer network, it's a network of networks.

I found that confusing, but it looks like 'computer network' early on generally meant something more like 'local area network'. If you think of it that way, an internetwork *isn't* a computer network, it's a whole other magic thing covering multiple campuses etc.

However, with the advent of the concept of layering- because the internet is just another layer, it's clearer to look at computer networks as encompassing internetworking as well.

So, really that's just terminology. However, I can't find a really good referencing to any of that, it seems to be more implicit. Tanenbaum does however mention that terms like 'computer network' has multiple meanings. We could probably do with a nomenclature section. If anyone can find some solid references that would be a big help. GliderMaven (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What once was cleanly divided into "LAN" and "WAN" has long since been completely blurred. Traditional WAN technology is considered legacy or even outdated. Ethernet, conceived as a LAN technology, has evolved to natively span hundreds of kilometers and has become very popular for WAN. Does it really matter so much if a network is held together by switches or routers? Does it matter if the components are managed by a single entity or by multiple ones? There are many views on this and we should – carefully – try to represent the major ones here, but please let's not overdo this. --Zac67 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Very notable authors distinguish computer networks from internetworks. This should be more clearly distinguished and defined in this article, rather than just lumped together in a blur. Glidenmaven claims that this blur is critically important, in his recent reverts. It is not. Clarity is important, not just in the lede. Kbrose (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If internetworks are not computer networks, then they need to be completely removed from the article. That is what you are calling for yes? Removal of the Internet and all internetworking from this article??? GliderMaven (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Gone. I wouldn't like you to think I'd 'blurred it completely'. GliderMaven (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, the distinction between network and internetwork may be an important one in very specific contextes, but it isn't here. Joe Average connects his computer "to the Internet" – but actually he doesn't? In the tight interpretation of network he connects his computer with his ISP's network (which is interconnected to the rest of the world). As per WP:SURPRISE, let's consider what an average reader expects to find here instead of drifting off into academic hairsplitting. Leaving out the Internet altogether goes the same way. --Zac67 (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It is fine if we want to make a distinction between a network and an internetwork. That doesn't mean that an an internetwork is not a network. A network of networks is still a network; It is not a local-area network but it is a computer network. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The question has been distorted by confusion, and somehow that seemed intentional from the beginning, IMHO. It was never, whether an internetwork is a network, but whether or not it is a computer network. That depends on the meaning of computer for this purpose. On a minimal level, of course, a router is also a computer, but this does not appear sufficient to some notable sources. Kbrose (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Network (computing) or computer network and are what I am referring to when I say network above. Of course, outside computing there are other meanings for network. Local area network and internetwork are, in my mind, specific types of computer network. But there are reports here that some sources see things differently. If computer network is some specific type of network for comuters, what would be a good umbrella term for describing the whole discipline? ~Kvng (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Satellites do not use computers, they are build using pasive elements such as this one, since no computer can work at 13 GHz. And they can operate with signals to switch, supress or amplify them as in any Telecommunication network; the satellites networks are part of Internet. Internet was designed and is still manteined as a network of networks, and not every network in the Internet works with computers. --Albertojuanse (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

History-Section: Network OSes

This is a question folks. Do not get me wrong.

The development of computer networks was – in my memory of exchanges about the topic a long time ago – closely connected to that of operating systems, which I will not name as I do know only one of them. Looking at the landscape of current operating systems, this relation – if it is real – should merit coverage in the article, as it can partly explain things which are felt as “odd” by some computer users, and natural by others... My English is not good enough to do that. And I am still questioning.

TY anyway. Psycho Chicken (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_network/Archive_1&oldid=1180675950"