Category talk:Link protocols

This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics This category is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the category attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles Telecommunications This category is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles

I suggest to move NDP from layer 2 to layer 3. ND messages (NS, NA, ...) are ICMPv6 packets, so they are handled on layer 3. Also the whole Neighbor Discovery process is located on layer 3 (Neighbor Cache). With IPv4 and ARP it was handled between layer 3 and layer 2. But with IPv6 this has been moved to layer 3.

I suggest that this category is renamed to Category:Data link layer protocols. I suppose that a renaming would require that someone manually modifies all articles in this category. Mange01 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me provide some arguments:

• No physical layer protocols are included in the list, so "data link layer" better reflects the content.
• The Link layer does not have a firm definition regarding if/to what extent physical layer protocols are included, or if it is essentially synonymous to the OSI model data link layer.
• In "link layer" protocol specifications such as PPP and Ethernet, OSI terminology such as "physical layer" and "data link layer" are used rather than TCP/IP term "link layer". Also in several RFC:s, for example RFC 1549.
• The lead text has referred to data link layer as well as link layer protocols since long time ago.

Background: The current name choice is just an incident. I created most of the other OSI model categories a couple of years ago, and categorised many protocols. Since "link layer" already happened to exist I chosed to use that as layer 2, and only wrote the above rename suggestion. At that time we did not have separate OSI based and TCP/IP model based categories. category:Internet Layer protocols did not exist, but we used category:Network Layer protocols instead (and still all IP layer protocols are categoriesed as network layer protocols). I still see no point in having one data link layer category, and one link layer category, since the content would be the same. Mange01 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there should NOT be a 'Link Layer' category and a 'Data Link Layer' category, but simply a 'Link protocol' category as it stands now. This avoids any layering controversy and is just as descriptive and accurate. I don't see why you want to force these topics into these layer schemes when we already know this is futile. Kbrose (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: The existing name better describes the protocol group in a manner that is independent of the networking model (TCP/IP or OSI) one chooses to apply. The suggested new name, on the other hand, shifts the age-old controversy of interpretation of protocols in terms of layering models into the Wikipedia category names. This is likely the reason why the category was chosen as is, in the first place, as each model, without controversy, describes networking of the link that hosts are connected to. The term link is used universally. Kbrose (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OSPF is listed as a layer 2 protocol in this page while the OSPF page states it is a layer 3 protocol. I will correct it if no-one diagrees. --Jbarcelo (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]