Talk:Multihoming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

I wrote this then did the Google search (better for the copyright :-) however, looking at this I've noticed that CISCO talks about NAT based multihoming as well. I don't think that's true multihoming, so I haven't mentioned it.

Doesn't make sense[edit]

This article should explain what multihoming is in the first sentence, but I read the entire article and I still don't know what multihoming is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.248.65 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

== LDP multihoming ==gffgfgfgdf

added LDP multihoming to give readers a chance to see a different "type"/approach to multihoming

Proposed Definition to Multihoming[edit]

As there is no concete definition for multihoming, I propose the following definition that is based on understanding from the following RFC document

As per the RFC A "multihomed" site is one with more than one transit provider."Site-multihoming" is the practice of arranging a site to be multihomed.

So I believe a proper defintion would be - Multihoming is a state when a site or node is connected with one or more transit providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitkr05 (talkcontribs) 14:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally needs a re-write.[edit]

Than you for writing this, but it is almost impossible to understand unless you already understand it. When the definition of a word (in this case "multihoming") contains the word itself (again, "multihoming") that's a big clear sign that something's wrong. 76.202.63.233 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the sources for all these ideas? Specific citations are required.[edit]

You need to give credit whence these ideas came. Unless you developed this technology single handed, citations are required to the original bodies of work. It gives credit where it's due and allows the reader to look up the work of those who actually developed this technology. Not doing so is plagiarism. Wikipedia too often poses as a summary of accepted and current knowledge and wants to be respected for that. If this is true, it should make presentations in the same fashion which were developed over hundreds of years of academic inquiry.

In addition please read: Strunk, William. Elements of Style. Ithaca, N.Y.: Priv. print. [Geneva, N.Y.: Press of W.P. Humphrey], 1918; Bartleby.com, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.162.229.144 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Too specific[edit]

This article gives a good description of specific cases of multihoming, but multihoming is a more general concept that simply refers to multiple IPs being hosted by a single operating system. I will consider rewriting portions of this article.

Good start though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatwhitesharkbear (talkcontribs) 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue it is even more general than that. It is really the concept of having more than one network connection. The same concept can apply to any level and any kind of network. And "reliability" is only one reason to do it; there are many others. Best to start with the general definitions, then cite some examples. W Nowicki (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the final paragraph belong here?[edit]

The final paragraph that starts: "Mono-homing applies if users are affiliating with a single platform. From consumers’ perspective, using ..." doesn't seem (to me) to have anything to do with the subject. If it does, it needs a rewrite. -- Dougher (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)