Sorry за включването, но ми е писнало от безкрайно повтаряне на грешки ...

In the TCP/IP model of the Internet, protocols are deliberately not as rigidly designed into strict layers as in the OSI model.[10] RFC 3439 contains a section entitled "Layering considered harmful (section link here [1])." However, TCP/IP does recognize four broad layers of functionality which are derived from the operating scope of their contained protocols, namely the scope of the software application, the end-to-end transport connection, the internetworking range, and the scope of the direct links to other nodes on the local network.
Even though the concept is different from the OSI model, these layers are nevertheless often compared with the OSI layering scheme in the following way: The Internet application layer includes the OSI application layer, presentation layer, and most of the session layer. Its end-to-end transport layer includes the graceful close function of the OSI session layer as well as the OSI transport layer. The internetworking layer (Internet layer) is a subset of the OSI network layer (see above), while the link layer includes the OSI data link and physical layers, as well as parts of OSI's network layer. These comparisons are based on the original seven-layer protocol model as defined in ISO 7498, rather than refinements in such things as the internal organization of the network layer document.
The presumably strict peer layering of the OSI model as it is usually described does not present contradictions in TCP/IP, as it is permissible that protocol usage does not follow the hierarchy implied in a layered model. Such examples exist in some routing protocols (e.g., OSPF), or in the description of tunneling protocols, which provide a link layer for an application, although the tunnel host protocol may well be a transport or even an application layer protocol in its own right.

Стига сте се опитвали да вкарате TCP/IP в OSI, нямат нищо общо помежду си. Обикновено това говори или за липса на какъвто и да е опит за мислене и интерпретиране на инфромацията, или за тотално непознаване на едно от двете.
P.S. IPX винаги е бил рутируем протокол, друга бира е колко често се е налагало да го рутирате ... Факт, и до днес се поддържа от читавите рутери, въпреки че самия протокол е мъртъв от години. И не, обикновено причината не са досовски програми, причината е достъп до Новелски сървър без TCP/IP (една от ранните ми машини с 3.1 още работи, въпреки че и аз отдавна съм забравил Новела) :-)