|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 NAT-based multihoming
- 2 Doesn't make sense
- 3 LDP multihoming
- 4 Proposed Definition to Multihoming
- 5 Totally needs a re-write.
- 6 What are the sources for all these ideas? Specific citations are required.
- 7 Too specific
- 8 Does the final paragraph belong here?
- 9 Interface vs link, what's the difference?
- 10 Rewrite of beginning of article
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
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
added LDP multihoming to give readers a chance to see a different "type"/approach to multihoming
Proposed Definition to Multihoming
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 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally needs a re-write.
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. 220.127.116.11 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What are the sources for all these ideas? Specific citations are required.
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
- 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?
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)
What's the difference between an "interface" (Multiple interfaces) and a "link" (Single link, Multiple links)? The article doesn't make this clear -- interface and link aren't defined here and there are no hyperlinks to definitions. -- Dougher (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rewrite of beginning of article
I've rewritten the beginning of the article, in a way that I hope is both more correct and more clear. I'll wait a few days for feedback, then, assuming nobody disagrees, I'll rewrite the rest of the article in the same style and add some references. Jec (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I like that you've reduced the amount of jargon and clumsy language in the new version. Good work! You should work on reducing or avoiding parenthetical expressions. I'm not sure why you removed this ref: . ~Kvng (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)