sphbecker

I would never argue that ICMP is layer 7. ICMP has no data. Yes, it technically has a payload, but that payload is meaningless bits never used by anything that you would call an application. I'll be honest, I thought about this a lot last night and might be starting to change my mind. If I claim that BGP is L7, then I would also need to say DHCP is L7, and I never thought about DHCP as such, but by my own agreement, it is passing data to be used by an application service running on another system. I guess my mindset for calling BGP layer 7 comes more from a TCP/IP model, in which case, yes, RFC1812 defines BGP, DHCP, and DNS all as application layer protocols, which made total sense to me yesterday, but I am not starting to see the other way of looking at it. I am coming to realize that the OSI model uses a slightly different mindset, what it calls the Application layer, is the layer where actual "work" gets done. BGP might pass data around a network, but it doesn't do any real work, it is just used to maintain L3 routing tables. From a conceptual point of view, this makes sense. I have always looked at the OSI model as layered prerequisites. From that point of view, I am comfortable calling BGP layer 7. However, I think the point you (and the OSI model) are making is that not every software system is L7. DHCP for example, is software that runs on a computer, but it is software with the sole purpose of managing L3 addresses, so therefor could be considered L3. From that point of view, BGP is also L3. I guess I will say you convened me, at least partly. Great conversation! Thank you very much!

Yep, I was wrong about the TCP bit. This is why I enjoy debating; I learn that some of my information I either learned wrong or got a bit switched in my head over the years. I still strongly argue that OSPF is layer 7. Yes, it runs directly on top of IP instead of using TCP, but other than the interesting sidenote that it doesn't use a transport protocol, that doesn't change the overall analysis. I guess by "true" protocol you mean that it has its own IP protocol number, which sure, that is the official term, but that is not to say the term protocol is being used incorrectly in other contexts. HTTP is also a protocol by definition, but it isn't an IP protocol and doesn't have an IP number. I don't really understand your comment about it using L2/L3 headers. It really doesn't, it runs on IP just like TCP, GRE, or IPSec do, it isn't directly interacting with ethernet frames to get around IP. I guess we can agree to disagree here. Not "every" protocol is L7; Ethernet, IP and TCP and examples of protocols that are not L7. However, every protocol that defines a conversation between software applications running on systems is L7. BGP/OSPF, when you look at the syntax of its messages, are all about passing information between software that will use that information to mange routes. I understand the software runs on a router, which adds some confusion, but I argue that BGP and others running on a router are an extended management services running on top of the router's OS, not a basic part of the router's L3 routing roles. Think of it this way. It would be entirely possible (stupid, but possible) to have a Linux server connected to a router, BGP is off on the router, and instead running in Linux with all the router's peers configuration. It also runs a script that sends static route commands to the router over its console port to maintain the correct routing tables in the router. Yes, very stupid, but also very possible. In that example, you can't say BGP is anything but an L7. It is software running on a server to exchange information and take actions based on that information. So I ask, why does it change because the software runs on the router's OS instead of an external OS? So in closing, I was wrong about OSPF and EIGRP running on TCP, but I still argue its layer 7. Its software to manage a router, it isn't the router itself. Therefore, like any other software that communicates across a network, it is communicating at layer 7.

You and I are on the same page here. I feel like the term "routing protocol" has led to a ton of confusion over the years. While it is arcuately named, it is also somewhat ambiguous. I feel like someone with a good understanding of networking but no knowledge of our terminology, who was asked to guess an example of a "routing protocol" is, might guess 'IP', because it is heavily used at the routing layer. I had a Cisco teacher 20 years ago spend at least 10 minutes harping on the difference between a "routing protocol" and a "routed protocol." I felt like it was a dumb conversation. They are two entirely different things that could only confuse someone because of the choose to use such similar names. I feel like a name like "route exchange protocol" or "dynamic router protocol" would lead to less confusion. And as far as "routed protocol" (which thank god isn't a term that caught on), should just be called payload. If you are a layer 3 router, you really don't care what comes after the end of the IP header, everything after just gets passed along. And yes, you are correct that in the TCP/IP model layer 4 is the application layer; different number, same concept as OSI 7. The only thing I really disagree is the comment about "not everything fitting neatly." I guess some things don't, but this isn't an example of one of them. BGP messages fit neatly into OSI 7 and there is really no argument to be made that they are any other layer. Now if we talk about something like SSH, that gets more complicated, in some ways it is a layer 7 protocol while in other ways acts like a layer 4 protocol (due to its ability to transport arbitrary network traffic). SSL is another weird one. In some ways it is layer 7, but with heavy interaction at layer 4, and its ultimate goal belongs somewhere between 4 and 5 (OSI model didn't really have encryption in mind when it was created). BGP, nothing complex about it.

Correct, all routing protocols are layer 7.

If by "what it allows you to do" you mean, at what layer its information is used, then yes, I agree with you. Ethernet MAC addresses are used by layer-2 switches to chose what port should be used, IP addresses are used by layer-3 routers to chose the correct next hop, TCP is a conversation from between the sender and receiver to ensure data is received, arranged in the correct order, and not sent too quickly, finally, BGP messages are not used by anything along the way, they are the network payload that needs to make it to the other side. BGP, OSPF, and EIGRP are all interchangeable applications that all use TCP for transport, it just depends on what language the router's admin wants to configure for use. In very much the same way you could use SFTP, SMB, or NFS to transfer files.

ChatGPT said it is layer 4 because it uses TCP (which if anything proves it is NOT layer 4). Wikipedia says it is layer 3 because it is part of the IP routing standards. I argue it is layer 7 because it is an application. BGP Peers exchange information with each other over TCP just like any other layer 7 application does. BGP itself has nothing to do with how its own messages get across the network, it expects TCP/IP to take care of that. The fact that the messages, once delivered, can cause layer-3 routing table changes is irrelevant. If anyone is interested in a very nerdy debate, feel free to add your two cents.

If anyone has ever messed with high quality cables (something I typically don't suggest, they are not really worth it), you know that they have a different feel. When you unwind them, they tend to be ultra flexible and have no bend-memory. You can lay one across the floor and it will lay flat, exactly how you set it, without any bends or kinks. Professional XLR/microphone cables are a great example of this. On the opposite end, most long network cables have a terrible problem with memory; even if you take extreme care in spooling them up correctly, they are a complete mess when you try to use them again. I am looking for a 150 ft CAT6a cable with those kinds of characteristics. I need to be able to quickly set it up on a temporary stage and then pack it away after, and I don't want to have to fight with it the way you have to fight with most Cat6 cables. I assume the network cables made by AV venders would be this way, but I need standard RJ45 connectors, not EtherCon, and I really want CAT6a, but most of those cables are 5e or 6, not 6a.

I played on the new 7800 XT last night. So far, it's working great! I am actually impressed with AMD's drivers, once installed, it automatically increased my Windows refresh rate to 144hz and enabled FreeSync, notifying me it was doing it with a single click to undo if it wasn't what you wanted. Those are both things I had to manually set with nVidia. Not a big deal if you understand the technology, but definitely a nice touch to help ensure less tech savvy gamers are getting full value from their equipment. I didn't think about this until I saw the PCIe 4 bullet on the box, but my board only supports PCIe 3. I am sure it isn't a problem for this card, but I am glad I didn't spend extra on the 7900 XT or it might have been interface bottlenecked.

Nope, was in the middle of a game and the entire screen switched to a grid of the space invaders ascii character, followed by a heavily artifacted BSOD. I did a full power down, reseated the card and turned it back on. It boots, but there are graphical artifacts everywhere, even during the BOIS screens. I plugged in an old 1030 for now and its working fine (other than a noisy fan and inability to run games).

Thank you for all the replies; I tend to agree with those suggesting the 7800 XT, it does seem to be a good pairing with my current system, which I hope to keep a few more years. Also, not sure if this is legit or not, but I found this single listing for a 7800 on Amazon for $400. Seems to good to be true, but Amazon is pretty good about returns even when it is a marketplace item like this. Amazon.com: Sapphire 11330-03-20G Pure AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Gaming Graphics Card with 16GB GDDR6, AMD RDNA 3 : Electronics EDIT: the listing I ordered is no longer there. My status shows "ordered" so I'll keep an eye on it and see if it actually ships. EDIT 2: I got an email from Amazon this morning that my order has been canceled. That seller now longer appears and the listing shows the correct price. Oh well, guess I'm making a trip to MicroCenter over my lunch.

Yes, I know those are all different price points. I like the value proposition of the 7800 at $500, willing to spend up to $800 for the 7900, and the 4070 is an interesting mid-point if I want to stay on team green. I am pretty familiar with the cards pros and cons, so don't feel like you need to spend a lot of time explaining those; just looking for help deciding if I actually want to spend more than $500. I know its personal choice, but I am on the fence here and would like to hear other opinions. Tell me what you would do if it was you. I can easily afford any of these cards, just trying to decide how much I want to spend on my system. PS: I am not considering the 4070 Ti, I absolutely refuse to spend that much for only 12 GB. I am not a big fan of the 4070 for the same reason, but am willing to consider it at the lower price point, and all things being equal, I do have a slight preference for NVidia (but it is slight). I have an older rig, hadn't planned on upgrading the GPU until I built a new system, but my 2070 Super just died, so here we are... Monitor: 1440p 144hz CPU: 5800X RAM: 32 GB DDR4 3600MHz Board: X470 PSU: high-tier 650 watt (a bit of a risk with the 7900, but I am willing to roll the dice and upgrade if stability is an issue)

I ran down to MicroCenter and was able to buy another LGA 1700 bracket for $5. Kept the same cooler. It was for my daughter's build and she wanted a white AIO that matched the rest of the system. It installed just fine with the new bracket. Also glad to report the motherboard appears to be fine. Have installed Windows and run a few benchmarks without any issues.

I tried something similar and it didn't work. I was able to put a screw into the backside of the nut and get a solid connection. I was able to use pilers at that point to put as much pressure as I wanted to. It would not budge. Once the board started flexing and creaking, I decided not to pull any harder.

Success (I hope), I taped up the board and used a 5/32" drill bit to drill out the nut. It's out and after cleaning up I don't see any apparent damage to the board. Off to the store to pick up a new cooler. Hopefully everything still works.

I tried as best I could, but with little effect. This is what I am working with, there is almost no amount of the nut sticking out of the board to get a tool around without risking contact with the board. Keep in mind that the nut shown is only about 2mm in diameter. I don't have anything that can be both that exact and also apply enough pressure to bend it.