…but we're going to keep asking questions about the 7 layer model in interviews as if it were useful in the real world because that's what we learned about in school.
"I hear they're going to 42 layers because it's a sacred number in Bali."
Not from this guy. I might ask you to critique the 7 layer model, or provide me with ideas for speeding things up by skipping layers.
It's all mushed together in real stacks anyway, with dogs down in the cat layer, and mice doing double duty both at the metal and up there in the UI. I swear to god, OSI would have been standardizing finger lengths for keyboard interaction if someone had let them.
I counter with the 9-layer model and that causes them to ask a more relevant question. This happens a lot when you're receiving a generic interview from a US Megacorp that has only recently ditched irrelevant (save for "how does this person think") quizzes for cross-functional interviews from people whose function is far removed from what you thought you were going to be interviewing for. (They all seem to have migrated to this strategy, for what that's worth.)
Came here looking for 7 layer model. It seems to be the only surviving legacy of OSI. From memory Computer Networks by Tanenbaum mapped every protocol into that damn model. Typical of committees to have 3 more layers than needed.
X.500 was tried and deemed too complex/unworkable and has since been mostly abandoned. (Who remembers X.500 DNs leaking out as e-mail addresses some twenty years ago?)
The idea of a directory service is a good one, so we ended up with LDAP and AD.
Straw man. Curiosity is good, but it's foolish to rule people out because an obsolete network model hasn't caught their interest or made it to the top of their research queue yet.
It's not just obsolete, it was proven to be unworkable. What's worth knowing about it isn't the details of the model, it's why the model should be ridiculed. The fact that the model keeps getting brought up as something that one should know because it's good is an example of why we have problems.
