On 6/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kevin McGregor</b> <<a href="mailto:kmcgregor@shaw.ca">kmcgregor@shaw.ca</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
A more complete discussion can be found at (surprise!) Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multihoming">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multihoming</a><br><br>I'm leaning more toward John's position, but it's still not entirely clear to me.
</blockquote><div><br>I think that article is pretty crummy, even by Wikipedia standards. <br><br>A multihomed host sits in two different subnets. By that definition, Trevor's box is multihomed. So is my Linux box at home with one Shaw connection and one private LAN connection -- it has a routing decision to make, albeit very simple. Two connections to the same L2 network like described in the wikipedia article isn't multihoming it's layer 2 redundancy. Don't even get me started on their "two addresses, one interface"
<br><br>But I haven't heard that definition used in years. Nowadays, multihoming implies two different carrier connections and BGP, giving both outbound **and inbound** redundancy (DNS-fu doesn't count).<br><br>Put another way, at my job we've got two big connections to the same carrier (active/passive), using BGP to handle the failover and route advertisement, and we still don't describe ourselves as multihomed.
<br><br>Sean<br></div><br></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sean Walberg <<a href="mailto:sean@ertw.com">sean@ertw.com</a>> <a href="http://ertw.com/">http://ertw.com/</a>