Re: Losing Communications with the Mount
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
(The following is a general comment and not intended as a specific reply to anyone on this thread.)
One important and fundamental fact about troubleshooting Ethernet/WiFi/IP/TCP/UDP networking problems is that anything measured at an OSI Layer higher than the Layer where the problem is originating, will give misleading & potentiality invalid results until problems at the lower Layers are resolved. And all Layers below a particular Layer are invisible to that Layer. All it gets to see is the data coming up from the Layer immediately below it. Troubleshooting tools like Wireshark use special "promiscuous" modes that are available in SOME network interfaces. These special "promiscuous mode" functions allow user apps like Wireshark to look more deeply at the statistics at the lower OSI Levels. Some "promiscuous mode" capable network adapters are more sophisticated and feature-rich than others.
The classic OSI networking model is as follows,
Layer 1 - Physical (cables, connectors, voltages, signals, carriers, etc.)
Layer 2 - Data (Ethernet Frames, Tokens, etc.)
Layer 3 - Network (IP Packets, others)
Layers 4/5 - Transport/Session (TCP, UDP, XTP, etc.)
Layer 6 - Presentation (decryption/encryption, etc.)
Layer 7 - Application (organization & delivery to/from the OS)
For troubleshooting purposes over the years, I have added three more important Layers to the OSI model as well.
Layer 0 - The funding. NOTHING is going to ever work right at any other Layer if this Layer isn't stable and solid.
Layer 8 - THE USER. "Yea, it was definitely a Layer-8 issue! Excessive operator head-space!"
Layer 9 - THE POLITICS. "Ugh. This is a Layer-9 problem and will NEVER get fixed!"
Seriously though, Layer 7 reports the the OS (computer operating system) and the user app interacts with the OS to get the networking services. Layer 7 is NOT the user app. Just FYI.
I hope this helps (and entertains!)
Waikoloa, HI 96738
On Thu, May 6, 2021, 12:35 PM Seb@stro <sebastiendore1@...> wrote: