3 ms·
Terminology like "layer 4", "layer 7" and sometimes "layer 3" is often used in documentation for things like load balancers, vpns or other tunnels, etc. As a sp
by thayne 3y ago
Terminology like "layer 4", "layer 7" and sometimes "layer 3" is often used in documentation for things like load balancers, vpns or other tunnels, etc. As a specific example the documentation is for layers is split into layers 4-7 that roughly sort of match the OSI model. Except not really, because the OSI model doesn't really math tcp/ip. And the first feature listed on the overview page for an AWS ALB is that it does "Layer-7 Load Balancing".
I have no idea why we continue to use thes numbers instead of saying the protocols or a more descriptive name, like transpory layer or application layer.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoI try and use "application layer" and "transport layer" myself but find that people don't really understand what I mean but for some reason understand "layer 4" and "layer 7" (and sadly yeah, occasionally "layer 3".) I still insist in documents in using descriptive layer names but usually in conversation just refer to load balancers or proxies.
- somat 3y agoIt is worse with drive arrays. The original UC Berkeley RAID project enumerated several possible configurations of drives. Unfortunately the numbers they used to represent their configurations entered the vernacular when we probably should have been using the names. Now it is a complete mess.