[jlmcguire]

This is one of those cases where both sides have some insight depending on viewpoint. The OSI model is like every other model. It isn't reality (at least in TCP/IP) but instead is a helpful abstraction esp. around troubleshooting and understanding networking concepts. There comes a point where the model breaks down but that doesn't mean it's an unhelpful model just that it isn't a complete picture. I try and work networking problems through the OSI layer model but am aware when things don't really fit well into it (MPLS, MSS, ARP, Layer 5-7).

[msla]

I agree with you, except that the use of the OSI model seems to be distorting history: TCP/IP went up against OSI and won, even though OSI was favored, because TCP/IP could get working systems faster. That's a lesson which should be learned, but it gets obscured if you think that TCP/IP implemented OSI and there never was a competition.

Plus, the OSI model is rather complicated; there's a "TCP/IP Model" with four layers which is a lot simpler:

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/tcp-ip-model/

> Process/Application Layer

> Host-to-Host/Transport Layer

> Internet Layer

> Network Access/Link Layer

(This seems to be the RFC 1122 model, BTW.)

RFC 1122 and RFC 871 each have models, too.

RFC 871 has:

> Application/Process

> Host-to-host

> Network interface

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

[swinglock]

It's just part of the lingo, a tool to communicate. The TCP/IP model ignores the physical layer making it a less useful tool.