I've always considered it one handshake, with 3 packets, which are for some reason then called "3 way". But it's one 3-way-handshake.
The author made a mistake in the title, but the content is mostly correct (fails at "First Handshake", "Second Handshake" and "Third Handshake").
He should call them stages, phases or something like that.
TFA appears to use both terms sort of interchangeably, which is uncool when describing a formalized protocol standard!
Segments are encapsulated in IP datagrams, or packets, which are, in turn, encapsulated in other PDU types, such as Ethernet frames.
IP fragmentation is typically avoided, and in IPv6 it is only allowed at the originator of a packet - if a router is trying to route an IPv6 packet larger than the MTU of the outgoing link's MTU, it must drop the packet and send a signal about the MTU back. An IPv4 router may fragment the packet, but this rarely works well in practice.
You're referring to "segmentation" which is also defined in that RFC. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293.html#name-segmentatio...
Its not latency related. Its because there 3 packets involved in completing the handshake.
> If the delay sending a packet between the client and server is k, there are 3 hops involved in establishing a connection so the time is 3k.
Also I think calling it "hops" is not correct. A hop occurs when a packet passes through a router.
> Confusingly, this has nothing to do with how many devices are involved.
In a TCP handshake there are only two devices involved (disregarding any middleboxes that meddle with the connection).
what it really amounts to is a three phase transaction.