OSI Reference Model And TCP/IP Networking Model Comparison And Network Design

Designing a Network for Riverina IT Solutions

The OSI model is the general-purpose model used generally for the description of the communications of the computers with each other over the network (Ali, 2017). On the other hand, the TCP is the main protocol which is used for the all the Internet Operation which are taking place in the web currently. The OSI model is a layer protocol and has seven layers, whereas TCP also being a layered protocol does not use all the layers of the OSI model and only makes use of 4 layers in the system. The top layers of the OSI model are Application layer, Presentation layer and Sessions, whereas the corresponding activities of these layers are performed only at a single Application layer in the TCP/IP model (Colin, Mathieu & Nakechbandi, 2016). The Transport Layer in the OSI model is corresponding to the TCP or the Host to Host layer in the TCP/IP protocol. The network layer in the OSI model refers to the IP layer in the TCP model. Finally, the Data link and the Physical Layer corresponds to the Network access layer in the TCP model (Alotaibi et al., 2017). Usually the Ethernet activities are carried out at these layers.

Diagrammatic Comparison between OSI Reference Model and TCP/IP Reference Model:

Figure 1: Comparison between OSI model and TCP/IP model

Source: (Created by Author)

Hands On 1-1

Hands on Project 4-1

The ARP cache is basically a collection of ARP that are to be entered in to the ARP table (Rao, Rai & Narain, 2017). These are created when the resolution of hostname takes place in the and the resolved resultant is obtained as an IP address. The IP address then corresponds to a MAC address and this helps the computer in communication with the IP addresses efficiently.  The addresses which are attached to the devices connected to the Local Area Network is generally 48 bits long (Bjorklund, 2018). The MAC is the physical address of the machines and the ARP cache then acts as a form of a table for correlating in between the MAC addresses and the IP addresses which are in correspondence with the MAC addresses of the machines connected to the network (Zhang, 2016).

Detailed Design of the Addressing Solution

The Reverina IT solutions is an organization who is looking to expand their business and the have also acquired around six sites for the expansion of their network. Hence it is obvious that they would also look to implement networking facilities in the six as they are looking to implement offices in these sites which has been acquired in the area around New South Wales. Hence, the organization is looking for a networking solution for themselves to implement it in the offices. I have been sought after for the development of the networking solution for the organization and develop a solution that would be spread around the six sites and interconnected with each other and the entire network would be consisting of around 1100 system which are to be allocated according to the information provided by the organization which is provided below (Kapadia & Shah, 2015):

• Wagga Office – 300 workstations
• Junee Office – 130 workstations
• Albury Office – 125 workstations
• Griffith Office – 120 workstations
• Temora Office – 215 workstations
• Culcairn Office – 150 workstations

Comparison of OSI Reference Model and TCP/IP Networking Model

Figure 2: Proposed Network Diagram for Riverina IT Solutions

(Source: Created by author)

The organization had already notified before the development of the network that the network is to be sub netted into six smaller networks and the number of machines to be allocated per site is also provide by the organization. They have also indicated that the IP address to be used for the subnet of the network is 10.0.0.0. Therefore, it was assumed that the /21 subnet on the network as this would allocate all the systems in the network according to the requirement of the organization in the network and would be the best as this would also reduce the loss of address space in the network. The major Network used for sub netting the network is 10.0.0.0/21. Available IP addresses in major network are 2046. The number of IP addresses required to be allocated by the organization is 1040. The number of available IP addresses in allocated subnets are 1524. It is to be note that about 75% of available major network address space is used and around 68% of sub netted network address space is used. The addressing table for the allocation of the IP addresses to the network is provided below:

Subnet Name	Needed Size	Allocated Size	Address	Mask	Dec Mask	Assignable Range	Broadcast
Wagga Office	300	510	10.0.0.0	/23	255.255.254.0	10.0.0.1 – 10.0.1.254	10.0.1.255
Temora Office	215	254	10.0.2.0	/24	255.255.255.0	10.0.2.1 – 10.0.2.254	10.0.2.255
Culcairn Office	150	254	10.0.3.0	/24	255.255.255.0	10.0.3.1 – 10.0.3.254	10.0.3.255
Junee Office	130	254	10.0.4.0	/24	255.255.255.0	10.0.4.1 – 10.0.4.254	10.0.4.255
Albury Office	125	126	10.0.5.0	/25	255.255.255.128	10.0.5.1 – 10.0.5.126	10.0.5.127
Griffith Office	120	126	10.0.5.128	/25	255.255.255.128	10.0.5.129 – 10.0.5.254	10.0.5.255

For the network to be expanded there has to be a change in the network addressing solution as the solution that is already designed for the organization would be able to allocate only 1100 computers, hence if the number of systems in the organization is increased to 1024 for the 6 building it would require an addressing solution that would be able to allocate around 6 x 1024 systems in the organization which is around 6144 machines. Therefore, there is a huge change in the number of machines which are to be allocated in the network. Hence, a new addressing solution is to be developed which would be done using the /18 sub netting method. The addressing table for the routers of the system is provided below for the reference of the networking administrator who would be developing the network (Ghosh et al., 2015).

Subnet Name	Needed Size	Allocated Size	Address	Mask	Dec Mask	Assignable Range	Broadcast
Albury Office	1024	2046	10.0.0.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.0.1 – 10.0.7.254	10.0.7.255
Culcairn Office	1024	2046	10.0.8.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.8.1 – 10.0.15.254	10.0.15.255
Griffith Office	1024	2046	10.0.16.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.16.1 – 10.0.23.254	10.0.23.255
Junee Office	1024	2046	10.0.24.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.24.1 – 10.0.31.254	10.0.31.255
Temora Office	1024	2046	10.0.32.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.32.1 – 10.0.39.254	10.0.39.255
Wagga Office	1024	2046	10.0.40.0	/21	255.255.248.0	10.0.40.1 – 10.0.47.254	10.0.47.255

Additionally, it is to be noted that the major Network for the development of the address table is 10.0.0.0/18. This would allow the number of IP address to be allowed in the network to be 16382. The required number of IP addresses is 6144 and the number of available IP addresses in allocated subnets are 12276. It is to be noted that about 75% of available major network address space is used and about 50% of sub netted network address space is used. Hence the suggesting addressing solution would be very useful for the development of the network for the network administrator.

Ali, Z. (2017). Review Of TCP/IP.

Alotaibi, A. M., Alrashidi, B. F., Naz, S., & Parveen, Z. (2017). Security issues in Protocols of TCP/IP Model at Layers Level. International Journal of Computer Networks and Communications Security, 5(5), 96.

Rao, J. D. P., Rai, S., & Narain, B. (2017). A study of Network Attacks and Features of Secure Protocols. Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 4.

Bjorklund, M. (2018). A YANG data model for IP management (No. RFC 8344).

Zhang, H. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,374,323. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Kapadia, S., & Shah, N. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 8,948,181. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Ghosh, K., Ramanathan, R., Lohiya, A., Sharma, M., Kini, S., & CunZhi, L. U. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 9,055,000. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Shang, W., Yu, Y., Droms, R., & Zhang, L. (2016). Challenges in IoT networking via TCP/IP architecture. Technical Report NDN-0038. NDN Project.

Kota, S., Goyal, M., Goyal, R., & Jain, R. (2016). Multimedia satellite networks and TCP/IP traffic transport. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08020.

Colin, J. Y., Mathieu, H., & Nakechbandi, M. (2016, May). A proposal for an open logistics interconnection reference model for a Physical Internet. In Logistics Operations Management (GOL), 2016 3rd International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Yasukata, K., Honda, M., Santry, D., & Eggert, L. (2016, June). StackMap: Low-Latency Networking with the OS Stack and Dedicated NICs. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (pp. 43-56).

Alan, H. F., & Kaur, J. (2016, July). Can Android applications be identified using only TCP/IP headers of their launch time traffic?. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (pp. 61-66). ACM.