Content deleted Content added
+vi: |
I'm not an expert but what was there looked misleading. |
||
Line 18:
One could combine our two protocols to form a powerful third mastering both cable and wireless transmission, but we would need a different super-protocol for each possible combination of protocols. It is easier to leave the base protocols alone, and design a protocol that can work on top of any of them (the [[Internet Protocol]] is an example). This will make two stacks of two protocols each. The inter-network protocol will communicate with each of the base protocol in their simpler language. The base protocols will not talk directly to each other.
A request on computer ''A'' to send a chunk of data to ''C'' is taken by the upper protocol, which (through whatever means) knows that ''C'' is reachable through ''B''. It therefore instructs the wireless protocol to transmit the data packet to ''B''. On this computer, the lower layer handlers will pass the packet up to the inter-network protocol, which, on recognizing that ''B'' is not the final destination, will again invoke lower-level functions. This time, the cable protocol is used to send the data to ''C''. There the received packet is again passed to the upper protocol, which (with ''C'' being the destination) will pass it on to a higher protocol or application on ''C''. Often an even higher-level protocol will sit on top, and incur further processing.
A commonly used protocol stack looks like this:
| |||