> I also described ARP as a layer 3 protocol. There’s some contention on this — while I think this is the most accurate and easiest explanation, networking is more nuanced than the OSI model might convey. Some would describe ARP as a level 2 or even level 2.5 protocol. For our purposes, I believe calling it level 3 makes the most sense.
TCP/IP doesn't follow the OSI model, so the nuance of OSI isn't directly applicable. ARP is practically defined (ref Stevens) as being in layer 2.5 (of the TCP/IP model), so i believe calling it 2.5 would make the most sense.
and i mean, ARP frames aren't routable. so they clearly aren't L3.
> I also described ARP as a layer 3 protocol. There’s some contention on this — while I think this is the most accurate and easiest explanation, networking is more nuanced than the OSI model might convey. Some would describe ARP as a level 2 or even level 2.5 protocol. For our purposes, I believe calling it level 3 makes the most sense.
TCP/IP doesn't follow the OSI model, so the nuance of OSI isn't directly applicable. ARP is practically defined (ref Stevens) as being in layer 2.5 (of the TCP/IP model), so i believe calling it 2.5 would make the most sense.
and i mean, ARP frames aren't routable. so they clearly aren't L3.