Mailing List Archive

Peerage versus Peering
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Peerage versus Peering [ In reply to ]
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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Peerage versus Peering [ In reply to ]
I'll try not to belabor the point too much, since this fellow copied my
previous message in its entirety in his reply (I do wish folks would
learn how to use a MUA), but....

> From: "Jeff Young" <young@mci.net>
> 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.
>
The folks discussing peering and routing policy, lo these many years
ago, were relying upon webster and other sources like unto it for the
terms to use in describing our needs. For example, see RFC 1104.


> 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.
>
If you want to define some term for "networks of equal or similar size",
please use some other term, since the use of "peer" in network
terminology is already taken. "Oligopoly" comes to mind.

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