1

I have only just started contrtibuting here so forgive me if you think I'm speaking out of turn, but I noticed that this question was put on hold https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/34958/https-relay-vs-https-proxy-pros-and-cons and then wondered whether this restriction was really in the best interests of the community.

I also refer to these:

Why doesn't network engineering support questions and tags of Internet protocols?

are questions about loadbalancing on topic?

The problem with this policy is illustrated by the proxies and loadbalancers questions. These elements are normally within the network discipline, if you remove network design from a load-balancer configuration then it will simply not work. What about application-aware firewalls and IPS? Are these networking devices?

Higher-layer protocols are part of networking in OSI. We see an increasing tendency to place session-layer functionality into what are traditionally seen as application layer protocols such as HTTP and SMB. Lets not forget that in OSI terms encryption is above layer-4, and we see this in the current prevalence of SSL over IPSec.

I guess that the real question for all networking professionals contributing to this forum is: For all these devices/disciplines in your own enterprise, do you want to be responsible for the design and implementation, or do you want to leave it to the server guys?

| |
2

I guess that the real question for all networking professionals contributing to this forum is: For all these devices/disciplines in your own enterprise, do you want to be responsible for the design and implementation, or do you want to leave it to the server guys?

I fail to see how this question is relevant here. What we want in our daily profession isn't really useful to debate here on meta.

However, to answer your real question: I don't think it's a good thing to promote questions about higher layers here. The overlap with Serverfault and Superuser would become too big, and this SE would become less interesting for people who are really focused on just network engineering.

| |
  • 1
    this SE would become less interesting for people who are really focused on just network engineering. I disagree with this. The scope of responsibilities for the Network Engineering career field has expanded beyond L1-L4. I think having the visibility into the network protocols from the perspective of a network administrator/engineer/architect would quite encourage people who are network engineers to participate and benefit from this community. – Eddie Sep 19 '16 at 18:41
  • 1
    @Eddie, this is the Network Engineering SE, not the Network Administrator SE. Microsoft (and other server companies) calls servers the network infrastructure devices, but Server Fault covers those very well, as well as network devices for network administrators. What you seem to want would completely duplicate Server Fault. What would be the point of Network Engineering in that case? – Ron Maupin Sep 20 '16 at 5:32
  • 1
    @RonMaupin What you seem to want would completely duplicate Server Fault Hardly. Server Fault looks at Networking and Network Protocols from the perspective of the server. Network Engineering looks at Networking and Network Protocols from the perspective of the network. If you don't see the distinct difference between those two perspectives then you may not be the right person to weigh in on this discussion. – Eddie Sep 26 '16 at 15:18
  • @Eddie, there are plenty of questions on Server Fault and Super User from the perspective of the network. Network Engineering was created to get network engineering questions separated from the noise of other questions on Server Fault and Super User so that network engineers can concentrate on those. Those SE sites still get and answer network engineering questions. I have not seen you participate on Server Fault, but I have been doing that for a while, as have others also on Network Engineering. Problems above OSI layer-4 need to be looked at from the application perspective if layers 1-4 are working correctly. – Ron Maupin Sep 26 '16 at 15:35
  • @TeunVink I guess what I'm saying is that network engineering encompasses L1-6, it's only because IP is pre-eminent over OSI that network engineers have traditionally only worried about L1-4 (in fact it can sometimes be hard to find network engineers who care about L4). However the technology is changing and the discipline needs to change. There is going to be less need for enterprise network engineering in the L1-4 space and there's going to be a convergence of networking and other infrastructure roles. Surely the remit of the IETF is an indication of the scope for network engineering? – marctxk Oct 12 '16 at 16:13
  • I fail to understand your last remark, care to explain that? In addition, the fact that 'the discipline needs to change' doesn't mean this SE has to. Stackexchange has a large number of exchanges for specific technologies and abstraction levels. At this moment you're not convincing me that this SE needs to accept questions which are at this moment perfectly on topic on other exchanges only because there's a new type of job. If other people think differently, I encourage them to voice their opinion either by posting a reply or upvoting the question. – Teun Vink Oct 12 '16 at 20:08
  • @TeunVink the IETF gets involved in stuff outside of L1-4 e.g. DNS. IETF stands for... that's all. I totally accept that if this group of forums doesn't wish to organise itself the same way as the rest of the industry then it needn't. – marctxk Oct 13 '16 at 9:20
  • And IETF has a large number of working groups for various specialisations of internet engineering, a bit like all these Stack Exchanges? – Teun Vink Oct 13 '16 at 9:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .