The OSI and TCP/IP reference models have much in common. Both are based on the concept of a stack of independent protocols. Also, the functionality of the layers is roughly similar. For example, in both models the layers up through and including the transport layer are there to provide an end-to-end, network-independent transport service to processes wishing to communicate. These layers form the transport provider.
Again in both models, the layers above transport are application-oriented users of the transport service.
Despite these fundamental similarities, the two models also have many differences. In this section we will focus on the key differences between the two reference models. It is important to note that we are comparing the reference models here, not the corresponding protocol stacks. The protocols themselves will be discussed later. For an entire book comparing and contrasting TCP/IP and OSI, see (Piscitello and Chapin, 1993).
Three concepts are central to the OSI model:
1. Services.
2. Interfaces.
3. Protocols.
Probably the biggest contribution of the OSI model is to make the distinction between these three concepts explicit. Each layer performs some services for the layer above it. The service definition tells what the layer does, not how entities above it access it or how the layer works. It defines the layer's semantics.
A layer's interface tells the processes above it how to access it. It specifies what the parameters are and what results to expect. It, too, says nothing about how the layer works inside.
Finally, the peer protocols used in a layer are the layer's own business. It can use any protocols it wants to, as long as it gets the job done (i.e., provides the offered services). It can also change them at will without affecting software in higher layers.
These ideas fit very nicely with modern ideas about object-oriented programming. An object, like a layer, has a set of methods (operations) that processes outside the object can invoke. The semantics of these methods define the set of services that the object offers. The methods' parameters and results form the object's interface. The code internal to the object is its protocol and is not visible or of any concern outside the object.
The TCP/IP model did not originally clearly distinguish between service, interface, and protocol, although people have tried to retrofit it after the fact to make it more OSI-like. For example, the only real services offered by the internet layer are SEND IP PACKET and RECEIVE IP PACKET.
As a consequence, the protocols in the OSI model are better hidden than in the TCP/IP model and can be replaced relatively easily as the technology changes. Being able to make such changes is one of the main purposes of having layered protocols in the first place.
The OSI reference model was devised before the corresponding protocols were invented. This ordering means that the model was not biased toward one particular set of protocols, a fact that made it quite general. The downside of this ordering is that the designers did not have much experience with the subject and did not have a good idea of which functionality to put in which layer.
For example, the data link layer originally dealt only with point-to-point networks. When broadcast networks came around, a new sublayer had to be hacked into the model. When people started to build real networks using the OSI model and existing protocols, it was discovered that these networks did not match the required service specifications (wonder of wonders), so convergence sublayers had to be grafted onto the model to provide a place for papering over the differences. Finally, the committee originally expected that each country would have one network, run by the government and using the OSI protocols, so no thought was given to internetworking. To make a long story short, things did not turn out that way.
With TCP/IP the reverse was true: the protocols came first, and the model was really just a description of the existing protocols. There was no problem with the protocols fitting the model. They fit perfectly. The only trouble was that the model did not fit any other protocol stacks. Consequently, it was not especially useful for describing other, non-TCP/IP networks.
Turning from philosophical matters to more specific ones, an obvious difference between the two models is the number of layers: the OSI model has seven layers and the TCP/IP has four layers. Both have (inter)network, transport, and application layers, but the other layers are different.
Another difference is in the area of connectionless versus connection-oriented communication. The OSI model
supports both connectionless and connection-oriented communication in the network layer, but only connection-
oriented communication in the transport layer, where it counts (because the transport service is visible to the
users). The TCP/IP model has only one mode in the network layer (connectionless) but supports both modes in
the transport layer, giving the users a choice. This choice is especially important for simple request-response
protocols.
A Comparison of the OSI and TCP/IP Reference Models
4/
5
Oleh
Unknown
