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