sean at ertw.com
Wed Jun 6 19:00:31 CDT 2007
On 6/6/07, Kevin McGregor <kmcgregor at shaw.ca> wrote:
> A more complete discussion can be found at (surprise!) Wikipedia:
> I'm leaning more toward John's position, but it's still not entirely clear
> to me.
I think that article is pretty crummy, even by Wikipedia standards.
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
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).
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.
Sean Walberg <sean at ertw.com> http://ertw.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Roundtable