Re: Peerage versus Peering

[Jeff Young]

you're certainly right about one thing, this is silliness.
webster certainly never contemplated this form of 'peer' so
it is useless to quote him.  i agree with peter, in this 
form 'peer' means a network of equal or similar size.  in 
the current state of technology, peer to me means capable
of asymmetry.  

i'm sure the rest of nanog will play a large role in defining
this term 'peer' in the coming months, native english speakers
and not.

Jeff Young
young@mci.net

> Return-Path: owner-nanog@merit.edu 
> Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42])
> 	by postoffice.Reston.mci.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20011;
> 	Sat, 3 May 1997 10:15:45 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
> 	by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27113;
> 	Sat, 3 May 1997 10:10:20 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 3 May 1997 10:01:56 -0400
> Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> 	by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA27030
> 	for nanog-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 10:01:55 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm035-22.dialip.mich.net [141.211.7.33])
> 	by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27026
> 	for <nanog@merit.edu>; Sat, 3 May 1997 10:01:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Sat, 3 May 97 13:37:09 GMT
> From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
> Message-ID: <5784.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Peerage versus Peering
> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 1477
> 
> > From: Peter Lothberg <roll@Stupi.SE>
> > Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something
> > like ''networks of equal size''.
> >
> This silliness comes up every so often, not always from non-native
> English speakers.
> 
> Peer actually means several unrelated things.  One of which (the first
> definition in my Webster's) is a member of a body called "the House of
> Lords" -- noblemen....  This comes from the Latin for "equal", yet is
> distinctly not equality.
> 
> Although it seems that there are some who desire to apply that usage,
> that certainly is not what the rest of us are talking about here!
> 
> The 5th definition is the one which I understand to apply: any associate.
> 
> 
> > The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global
> > players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer.
> >
> As a matter of network engineering, this Internet has not historically
> established a peerage, a heirarchy of "first among equals".
> 
> TCP/IP (and PPP and every other protocol I've worked on in this
> environment) establishes "peer-to-peer" connectivity.  A peer is merely
> any entity with which you have established communication.  More
> prosaically, someone with whom you "look closely".
> 
> Where this term comes from, to quote the dictionary, is "entymology
> uncertain".
> 
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
> BSimpson@MorningStar.com
>     Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -