Talk:Host (network)

A host is not always a computer

Depending on the definition. A router is also a host. A (level 7) gateway is also a host. As is a printer with a NIC.

I would suggest that a host is a node that has a level 3 address. In *nix, anything that can be added to the hosts file. (This is one of the few instances where I believe even the CCNA material is wrong.)

Is there any RFC on this? Or any academically researched book? --itpastorn (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All these things are computers. They have electricity running through them. They have central processing units which process programs. They have RAM and ROM. They have input-output ports and react to interrupts. They have peripherals under their control. They are neither vitamin pills nor mountain ranges; they are unquestionably computers. Unfree (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would that be understandable to a normal reader. The word "computer" normally means something more narrow (PCs, servers, mainframes, handhelds...) than computer in a very strict technical sense. BTW, why do you think I wrote: "Depending on the definition"? --itpastorn (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Whole Article

Actually, the whole article stinks. Here's the text as it stands at present, with my comments interspersed throughout and enclosed in braces:

Host (network)

A host is a node on a network that is a computer.[1][2] Every host is a node but every node is not a host.

{I've already discussed the first sentence; the second is simply wrong. It says "every node is not a host," but the beginning of the sentence says "every host is a node"! Obviously, the intent is to say that "not every node is a host," which is entirely different. Moreover, it goes without saying. Furthermore, it follows the statement that "A host is a node," making "Every host is a node" utterly redundant.}

Definition

In general terms, a host is a computer on a computer network. {Is there any good reason for the disclaimer, "in general terms"? Definitions ought to be definite. We already know from the opening sentence that a host is a computer, and that it's a node. The whole sentence, like the one before it, contributes nothing.} A host is at a specific location {Why "specific"? Are there locations other than specific ones?} on the network; {Doesn't that, too, go without saying? Perhaps there are computers which have no location. Are there?} this holds true {"This holds true" is bad style.} for the nodes which make up the network as well. {"As well" as what? We know that a host is a computer which acts as a node on a network. What is now being said of nodes?} The location is called an address; {So the location isn't called a location; why call it a location in the first place?} in the Internet protocol suite, the address is an IP address. {If the address is an IP address, why not introduce it as an "IP address" in the first place? And how does it help to know that? Does "host" mean something in other contexts which differ from its meaning in the Internet protocol suite, and if so, why isn't that explained explicitly? Also, what is it that a "host" hosts? According to the first reference at the bottom, which, incidentally, is gone, but archived by the Wayback Machine, it hosts information. Is that true? Is that why it's called a host? The second reference is a lot more confusing; it only says what "a host used to be."}

The term host should not be confused with host computer, which is a computer server on a computer network. {This really throws a monkey wrench into the whole concept. None of these things are surrounded with quotation marks to distinguish them as precise terms. Is "host computer" not a host? Is it not a computer? What is it? What about "computer host"? Does that mean anything? Is a "computer server" a computer? Does it serve computers? Is a computer network a network made up of computers? Why not say so? The sentence seems to imply, assuming that a "host computer" is a computer, and assuming that "computer server on a computer network" means that the "host computer" is "on" a network in some way, that it's something other than a node. What else is there on networks besides nodes? Doesn't that require explanation in order to understand what a host is?}

History {The information here is of historical interest, but it's peripheral to a discussion of hosts.}

A hosts file originally defined in RFC 627 to define locations of hosts on the ARPANET.

{That isn't a sentence. Also, RFC 627 doesn't define or mention "hosts file." Nor does it define "locations" or "locations of hosts." It is about a file, but the name of the file is "HOSTS.TXT," not "hosts."}

This is why the file was named hosts, literally a file with a list of hosts.[3]

{"This" is vague; what does it refer to? "Literally" goes without saying; we know the article isn't worded figuratively. "HOSTS.TXT," apparently, wasn't "with" a list of hosts, it actually was one, but RFC 627 isn't very helpful in explaining what a host is; its purpose, evidently, was to document and publicize the existence and location of the file.}

References {All these references are very poor. I discuss them with respect to the information they present under the word "host." The inclusion of an RFC among the references is encouraging, though. There must be a few gems among them.}

  1. ^ Glossary of Distance Learning Terms, University of New Orleans, Accessed: June 27, 2007.

{That has been taken down, was poorly worded, and was not in the least authoritative. Judging by "Distance Learning," it was intended only as a brief introduction to a few essential ideas students might need to know.}

  2. ^ Advertising Glossary Index smartbizconnection.com, Accessed: June 27, 2007. 

{This reference is even less clear than the first, is less authoritative, discusses the subject only tangentially, and is profit-motivated. It discusses hosts in a way suggesting its intended readers are already familiar with the term. It actually says only what "host" was, not what it is.}

  3. ^ ASCII TEXT FILE OF HOSTNAMES, RFC 627, Mike Kudlick - Jake Feinler, March 25, 1974

{This is ancient and primitive. It's interesting to see how "hostname" was used in 1974, but it isn't really about hosts, only about a file which acted as an index.}

Unfree (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Formal definitions

I am looking for definitions of terms in RFCs. It seems "host" is a bit vague, depending on the circumstances. We have got:

Unix hosts

Anything you can put in a hosts file

Formally defined where?

History of the term is described where?

NetBIOS hosts

Confusion abound: http://www.geekinterview.com/question_details/33601

Host computers

aka. servers

Web hosts

Physical and virtual

IPv4/Internet hosts

Any device that has or can have an IP-adress. It's a host even before it has been given an IP address through DHCP, according to the language in the RFCs. Eg in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1531#section-1.4

A host computer, or simply "host," is the ultimate consumer of communication services. A host generally executes application programs on behalf of user(s), employing network and/or Internet communication services in support of this function. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#section-1.1.1

An Internet host corresponds to the concept of an "End-System" used in the OSI protocol suite [INTRO:13]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#section-1.1.1

A host typically must implement at least one protocol from each layer. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#section-1.1.3

IPV6 hosts

Any node that is not a router (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-2), where a node is any device that "implements IP" (which normally is not the definition of a node)

Etc

Two factors seem consistent: Naming and addressability. Generally RFC 1122 seems to be the best source for how the term host is used today. Anyway, the article needs a rewrite.--itpastorn (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added RFC 1122 to the EL section. ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup rewrite

Lgnlint added a {{cleanup rewrite}} tag with edit comment: Added cleanup rewrite tag due to article quality and how long it's been in poor shape. I finished a review of all text in this article in 2018 and didn't see such a general issue so have removed the tag. We're going to minimally need a more specific description of what is wrong here before restring it. ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfree provides a much more in depth description of what's wrong with the article than I can put together under the section titled The Whole Article on this talk page, and more generally, everything else on this talk page serves to point out issues of overall quality. These are the issues I was referring to when I tagfged the article for cleanup rewrite. In addition to the issues he pointed out, there's just a lack of overall quality to all aspects of the article that I struggle to articulate in words yet appear clear to me when comparing this article to other, well written articles. I'm sorry that I'm struggling to describe the issues in words, but surely someone else has a sense of what I'm trying to point out. The closest I can get to describing the problems with the overall presentation is that it's "messy" and "jumbled" just to read in general (although even these fail to describe what I'm trying to get at well enough). It's also presented in a way where if an individual had no prior knowledge in networking or what a host is, then the article would fail completely in making any sense to them - in the sense that everything presented in the article would fail to mean anything. I say this as a network professional who finds this article to be an absolute mess of jumbled, mixed information and unusual terminology that, while correct, has no reason to be presented in such a way. I found myself often going "Wait... what?" and doing on the fly translation / "decoding" to unwrap what the author is even attempting to say. I hope this makes sense to someone and they can see what I'm attempting to say about the article and why I feel it needs a complete rewrite. I have retagged the article hoping that this description from me provides adequate reasoning for it. Lgnlint (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In my WP experience, rewrite is a drastic and often counterproductive suggestion. You are not offering any new direction here, just winging on fairly nonspecifically about the current state of the article. I'm not going to claim that all of the issues in #The Whole Article have been addressed but there have been a lot of improvements made since that screed was written 11 years ago. This gives good evidence that remaining issues can be resolved through the power of incremental improvement without requiring your suggested rewrite. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that it could be incrementally improved, but I wound up tagging the article for complete rewrite just due to the particularly glaring issues with quality that I found in reading it when comparing it to the bulk of other Wikipedia articles. I just happen to know that I'm not the right person to do a rewrite or do any cleanup / contribution in any meaningful manner. While I'm a networking professional (which is how I found myself on this article in the first place) and could teach somebody what a host is in a clearer way, I would struggle to do so in the encyclopedic format of a Wikipedia article so I tagged it for a rewrite so that possibly somebody with the proper skillset could take a crack at it. I know that some may dislike that I suggest a complete rewrite while at the same time offering no specific contributions of my own, but I still feel that this is the correct path to take. I made the decision primarily as a reader of Wikipedia and as a network professional - meaning that while I don't have the ability to write articles or contribute in a meaningful manner I still recognize when an article is in poor shape, and as a network professional I also don't believe that anything in the current article is of enough value to warrant expanding on rather than starting anew. Lgnlint (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how that goes. You are right, I don't like that you suggest a complete rewrite while at the same time offering no specific contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Kbrose, another experienced editor on these topics, has removed the tag. Please do not restore it without WP:CONSENSUS to do so. ~Kvng (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate my edit summary, it is really hard to surmise why such a short article would need to be rewritten to fix something (unspecified) that could not be added incrementally. This does not mean that the article is good as it stands, but there is no reason to restart another collection of typical usages of the term. New articles often repeat prior mistakes when no new and clearly defined objective exists. Kbrose (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, not much controversy here, is there ;-)

I have a number of comments:

  * I applaud the effort to define hosts -- it is a term that has confused me for a long time, but this article hasn't really helped, or not very much.

  * Back in the day (ca. 1985), the word "host" was (among people I worked with) used to describe almost any standalone computer (e.g., a PDP 11/750).  I had one (high ranking in our company) colleague who objected to the term as a devout Catholic.

  * Often on mailing lists that I peruse, I see people using the word as a synonym for computer, connected to anything or not (but these days it may be hard to find a computer that is not connected to some network type thing (continuously or intermittently). 

  * Also, often on mailing lists that I peruse, I see people using the word as a synonym for server.

There is enough confusion (in my mind ;-) that my intent in writing anything will be to avoid the use of the word "host".

In reading what others have written, I will probably continue to have trouble understanding what they mean as I often see it used as a synonym for server and often used as a synonym for any computer on a network, and sometimes even just as a synonym for any computer.

Rhkramer (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE : I often also see the word used as a synonym for server, yet per most of the definitions here, a host could be a client or a server. Rhkramer (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Deleted my comments about the last two paragraphs, added a comment about my intended avoidance of the word "hosts". Rhkramer (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)