Talk:Recursive Internetwork Architecture

Computing: Networking Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article sounds very much like something has read John Day's book and coroborated his point of view here...

This is John Day's book and not all of this is good faith. 'The internet ceases to be an internet?' Who agrees with that besides Day and a few groupies? 2605:E000:90C5:A000:1493:686D:69D3:CBD7 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what are your technical arguments to support that the sentence you are referring to is incorrect, maybe it is the use of language since the word "Internet" means many things to different people. In this article "Internet" is used in the context of computer network architecture. The fact that the "Internet layer" is directly on top of the data link layer in the TCP/IP protocol suite makes the current "Internet" a very large IP network. In the current Internet architecture there is no room for network-layer relaying. If you want to do your own non-IP forwarding in your network (or hide your internal network IP routers from the Internet) you have to introduce "patches" in the architecture like "layers 2.5" (MPLS) and all sorts of tunneling (GTP, etc..). RINA provides a simpler and more accurate architectural model for describing real computer networks, which, if implemented, would dramatically minimize the number of protocols and technologies required to run networks.

The number of people agreeing with a statement is not correlated to its correctness. Science is not democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edugrasa (talk • contribs) 08:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV marked

Agreed with 2605:E000:90C5:A000:1493:686D:69D3:CBD7. Marked with the POV template until the lack of neutrality is addressed. LodeRunner (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

needs rewrite to be neutral

The content is reasonable, but needs to be expressed as one potential framework for understanding network communications rather then presented as the "only and obvious" choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TcomptonMA (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have enough of a grasp on the content to undertake a rewrite. Thanks in advance for signaling any inaccuracies that may have occurred. Hayazin (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]