From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: And then there were two Date: 5 Jun 2001 17:16:13 -0700
If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal?
Why can't you have more than two 'equals'? Couldn't you have three 'equals' or four 'equals'? It would be just as difficult to maintain three or four _exact_ divisions as it would be to maintain two.
I've never understood how the word "peer" mutated from its technical definition arising from its use in the BGP protocol to its use by marketing people.
The keyword is 'marketing' people. Aren't they the ones who always twist and exploit technical terms?
As far as I can tell, EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol) originally used the term "neighbor." Berkeley used the berkelism "peer" in their software and RFC 911 documenting their experience, and the term stuck through EGP2, BGP1-4.
If we still used the word "neighbor" would the phrase "Are you a neighbor?" have a different ring than "Are you a peer?" You can have lots of neighbors, even if you think you are superior to all of them.
You're thinking about this too much. The backhoes must be behaving today! ;-) -rb _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
If you accept the premise that "peer == equal" does that mean in the end there will be only two ISPs each with exactly 50% of the world's Internet because no one else will be an equal?
Why can't you have more than two 'equals'? Couldn't you have three 'equals' or four 'equals'? It would be just as difficult to maintain three or four _exact_ divisions as it would be to maintain two.
I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle) and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear. [Descartes, on being asked if he wants a beer, says "I think not". . . . ] -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- . . - L. F. (Larry) Sheldon, Jr. - . Unix Systems and Network Administration . - Creighton University Computer Center-Old Gym - . 2500 California Plaza . - Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A. 68178 Two identifying characteristics - . lsheldon@creighton.edu of System Administrators: . - 402 280-2254 (work) Infallibility, and the ability to - . 402 681-4726 (cellular) learn from their mistakes. . - 402 332-4622 (residence) - . http://www.creighton.edu/~lsheldon Adapted from Stephen Pinker . -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:10:47AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle) and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear.
Ok, can someone tell me if I've fully understood this thread on peering agreements? ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS Um, I mean ... s/ANIMALS/PROVIDERS Eric :)
I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle) and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear.
Ok, can someone tell me if I've fully understood this thread on peering agreements?
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
Um, I mean ... s/ANIMALS/PROVIDERS
In either case, I believe (in a Darwinian sense) that some behaviours are good survival tactics, some are not. "equality" is seldom mentioned in the stuff I read as a survival tactic. My guess is (and since it is a pretty big stretch to call me an ISP--I do play one in local theater, it only a guess) that the better survival tactic (better than worrying about "transit" and "peering") would involve concepts like "providing services will pay money for at a rate larger than I have to pay for them". -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- . . - L. F. (Larry) Sheldon, Jr. - . Unix Systems and Network Administration . - Creighton University Computer Center-Old Gym - . 2500 California Plaza . - Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A. 68178 Two identifying characteristics - . lsheldon@creighton.edu of System Administrators: . - 402 280-2254 (work) Infallibility, and the ability to - . 402 681-4726 (cellular) learn from their mistakes. . - 402 332-4622 (residence) - . http://www.creighton.edu/~lsheldon Adapted from Stephen Pinker . -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
participants (3)
-
Eric Gauthier
-
Larry Sheldon
-
Ron Buchalski