Basic knowledge on internet

1. How the Internet Is Structured
By Paul D Kennedy | Submitted On October 05, 2014
The term Internet is a contraction of 'interconnected networks' and, indeed, the Internet is a gigantic
global collection of linked networks. The networks that make up the Internet can range in size from
tiny (just two or three connected computers) to massive (thousands of interlinked machines).
An Internet service provider (ISP) is a telecommunications business that delivers Internet-related
services such as access to the Internet, domain name registration, website hosting, and so on. ISPs
enable you to connect to the Internet.
When you use your computer to access the Internet from your home you most likely connect to an ISP
via a modem and a local telephone number or through a dedicated high-speed line. When you connect
to your ISP you become part of their network, which allows you to access the Internet.
The computers in the office where you work are likely to be connected together into a network known
as a local area network (LAN). This enables the computers in the office to communicate with each
other. The LAN is most likely connected to an ISP and this connection enables you to access the
Internet from your office computer.
Either way, your home PC or your office LAN becomes part of the ISP's network. The ISP will link in
turn to a larger network to become part of that network. That network will be connected to other larger
networks to create a communications system that spans the entire globe.
Thus the Internet is nothing more than a network of networks. These networks connect computers using
a wide variety of technologies, including conventional and high-speed telephone lines, fibre-optic
cables, microwave links, wireless technologies and satellite communications.
Object 1Object 2Object 3

2. Where Internet Jurisdiction Can Get Your
Business Sued!
By Philip A. Nicolosi, J.D. | Submitted On June 16, 2014
1 1
The concept of Internet jurisdiction can be complicated and unclear. What happens when a dispute
arises over an item or service purchased from your business through the internet? If that dispute turns
into a lawsuit, it could be with an individual residing across the country from your business. What
happens then? If you live in California, could your business actually be dragged into a state court in
Maine?
Any business with an Internet presence should understand how courts gain authority to hear claims
made against out-of-state businesses. The bottom line is that establishing Internet jurisdiction over your
business can potentially end up being very costly!
Establishing Internet Jurisdiction Over Your Business
No matter what the subject of the dispute is about, a court must have what is known as "personal
jurisdiction" over all the parties involved. This applies to all courts, including state and federal district
courts. Establishing personal jurisdiction means that the court has the legal power to make a binding
decision over the plaintiff and the defendant in a given dispute. State and federal courts always have
personal jurisdiction over state residents. But, when the defendant's principal residence or place of
business is not in the state where the lawsuit is filed (often called the "forum state"), matters are much
more complex. This is often the case with suits involving e-commerce.
(Note: A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which
its principal place of business is located. A partnership or limited liability company is considered to
assume the citizenship of each jurisdiction of its partners/members. If you understand the nature of how
a court can gain jurisdiction to hear a claim filed against your business, you can avoid certain practices
that may expose you to out-of-state claims.)
The Concept of Minimum Contacts
One way a foreign court can claim personal jurisdiction over your business is by establishing that some
sort of meaningful connection exists with the state in question and your business. States can exercise
jurisdiction over your business through their "long-arm statutes" (which I discuss separately). However,
the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates that certain "minimum contacts" must exist
between the forum state and the defendant in order for a state to assert jurisdiction over the defendant.
This basically means that activities which are deemed to establish substantially sufficient contacts with
the residents or businesses of a particular state can be used by its courts to establish jurisdiction over
your business. For example, you are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of an out-of-state court
simply because you are involved in an automobile accident with a resident of that state where you live.
All the events necessary to give rise to the claim occur outside the state of the other resident.

3. Activities establishing minimum contacts with another state are not always clear, but usually any
substantial presence in the state will justify personal jurisdiction. Regularly soliciting business in
that state, deriving substantial revenue from goods or services sold in that state, or engaging in some
other persistent and continuous course of business conduct in the state are all examples of activities that
would establish minimum contacts with that state.
Minimum Contacts Define Internet Jurisdiction
As stated, the concept of minimum contacts becomes more complicated when it involves the Internet.
The courts have recognized that exposing the owners of a website to personal jurisdiction simply
because the website can be viewed nationally is not enough to establish minimum contacts in a given
state. Personal jurisdiction is "directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity
that a business conducts over the Internet." Businesses that enter into contracts or subscriptions with
residents of another state that involve the "knowing and repeated transmission of computer files
over the Internet will be subject to the jurisdiction of out-of-state courts. But, websites that only
post information without making active sales are unlikely to establish personal jurisdiction in a foreign
state (except in the state where the owner(s) resides or conducts other business).
The 'Zippo' Sliding Scale Guide
Generally speaking, minimum contacts for Internet retailers and marketers are directly related to
the nature and quality of electronic contacts they establish with residents of another state. In other
words, mere advertising alone is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Most courts across the nation
have adopted the "sliding scale" approach used in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
(1997). The court in Zippo determined that the act of processing the applications from Pennsylvania
residents and assigning passwords was sufficient to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts with the
state. But, the Court held that jurisdiction is not proper when a website passively posts information on
the Internet which may or may not be viewed by residents of that particular jurisdiction.
In the Zippo case, the district court described a spectrum consisting of three categories websites fall
under. This spectrum ranges from: 1) businesses clearly conducting commercial activities over the
Internet by entering into contracts with residents of the forum state; 2) interactive web sites with
which a user in the forum state can exchange information and jurisdiction is proper if the level of
interactivity is sufficient and there is a commercial component to the web site and 3) web sites
which are "passive" by merely allowing users to post information accessible nationwide or
globally that do not target a particular plaintiff in a particular forum (i.e. by intentional
trademark or copyright infringement or in cases of defamation). Basically, under the Zippo sliding
scale jurisdiction is more likely to be established when your Internet business engages in commercial
activities directed at residents of a given state.
Of course, many cases fall in the middle of the Zippo sliding scale. In these instances, the courts
generally have determined that "the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of
interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website." Making
multiple sales to state residents is likely to expose an Internet-based business to personal jurisdiction in
that state. A single sale may also be enough, provided it is accompanied by numerous intentional
communications with a resident customers so that the transaction can be said to be purposefully aimed
at the residents (or businesses) of that state.
Typically, the courts require "something more" than passive Internet advertising or more than just a
single sale for jurisdiction to exist over a non-resident Internet business. Jurisdiction is often triggered
by repeated or commercially significant sales to out-of-state residents, deliberate target marketing to
out-of-state residents or significant non-Internet based contacts with the state.

4. State Long Arm Statutes
All states have enacted "long-arm statutes" setting forth what will be considered sufficient contacts
with that state. In a nutshell, the long-arm statute allows that state's courts to gain personal jurisdiction
over Internet businesses. These statutes form the legal basis allowing the courts to exercise personal
jurisdiction over your business. Under these statutes, service of process outside the state on nonresident
individuals and businesses is allowed for claims generally arising out of: (1) the transaction of any
business in the state; (2) the commission of a tortious act within the state; (3) the ownership, use, or
possession of real estate in the state; or (4) contracting to supply goods or services to any person or
business in the state; or 5) causing injury or damage in this state to any person by breach of warranty
expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods; 6) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk
located within this state at the time of contracting; 7) an act or omission outside the state causing injury
in the state.
State courts typically exercise personal jurisdiction over Internet businesses under the "transacting
business" provision of the long-arm statute. Like the Zippo court, state courts will look at jurisdiction
in an Internet setting by looking at the "nature and quality" of the contacts with the state. Some Long-
arm statutes set forth factual situations likely to satisfy the minimum-contacts test. Others contain much
broader provisions not inconsistent with constitutional restrictions.
Helpful Case Summaries
Here is a summary of some decisions that have helped shape the law regarding internet jurisdiction.
Hopefully, these summaries can provide some guidance.
• Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc. (1998): A Texas court gained personal jurisdiction over an
out-of-state online gambling enterprise because the gambling operation entered into contracts
with Texas residents to play online gambling games, sent emails to the Texas residents, and sent
winnings to Texas residents;
• Chloé NA v Queen Bee of Beverly Hills LLC (2010): The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals
held that specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state website operator located in
California may exist based on a single act of shipping a handbag into New York, along with
other substantial business activity in the state. The single act of shipping an infringing handbag
to New York combined with other substantial contacts, such as the shipment of several other
items in-state and operating a commercial interactive website available to New York residents
was sufficient to obtain specific personal jurisdiction;
• Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralksky (2002): The court held that nonresident defendants'
transmission of spam emails through plaintiff's servers, located in Virginia, to nonresident
Internet subscribers created a substantial connection to forum sufficient for exercise of personal
jurisdiction on a claim of trespass to chattel;
• Gates v. Royal Palace Hotel (1998): The court decided that the combination of a concentrated
advertising effort within the state of Connecticut, active booking of reservations for Connecticut
citizens through state travel agents, and an invitation to Connecticut citizens to make
reservations through the Internet, constituted the transaction of business within the state such
that exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper.
Causing an Injury within a State
Your Internet business can also be subject to jurisdiction in another state for purposefully causing a
physical or economic injury (i.e. a "tort") to a business or resident of that state. This is a separate
avenue of liability outside of a breach of contract claim where your business is dragged into court by

5. one of your unhappy customers. If you use the Internet to cause an injury in one state, you or your
business may be brought into court in the state where the injury occurred. For example, under state
long arm statutes, committing a tortious act within the state is a basis of jurisdiction.
Of course, in cases where the connection between the activity and the injury is not clear, courts have
looked for evidence that the activity was "purposefully directed" at the resident(s) of the forum state, or
that the person causing the injury had substantial contacts with the state. Most courts are less inclined
to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents in cases involving tort claims arising from Internet
use. Generally speaking, an Internet business must direct its activities at an in-state resident, or have a
continuing obligation with that resident, in order reasonably to anticipate being hauled into court in the
state.
But, not all torts or injuries will expose your business to the personal jurisdiction of another state. Even
if a plaintiff claims to feel the effects of the harm caused by an act causing injury in his or her forum
state, there must still be "something more" than mere Internet use to satisfy due process under the
Constitution. Purposeful conduct may still be insufficient in jurisdictions where the activity must be
directed at the plaintiff in his or her capacity as a resident of that particular state.
More case examples:
• EDIAS Software International v. BASIS International Ltd. (1996): A New Mexico company
was sued for sending defamatory email and making defamatory postings about an Arizona
business. The court claimed personal jurisdiction because the defamatory statements
intentionally targeted the Arizona business and actually caused an injury (defamation) within
the state.
• Pavlovich v. Superior Court (Cal. 2002): Under the "effects test", the trial court did not have
jurisdiction over a foreign resident in a corporation's suit alleging the resident misappropriated
its trade secrets by posting the corporation's program's source code on his website. The website
was accessible to any person with Internet access and the resident merely posted information
and had no interactive features. The court determined that the resident could not have known
that his tortious conduct would hurt the corporation in California when the misappropriated
code was first posted and this did not establish express targeting of California residents.
• Blumenthal v. Drudge (1998): In another early decision, Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report
made alleged defamatory statements about a Washington, D.C. resident on his website and the
resident filed suit in the District of Columbia. Although Matt Drudge lived and worked in
California at the time of the suit, a court ruled that he was subject to personal jurisdiction in the
District because the injury occurred in the District. The court also determined that the Drudge
Report had substantial contacts in D. C. since Drudge personally emailed his column to a list of
emails belonging to D.C. residents, solicited contributions and collected money from D. C.
residents and he traveled to D. C. on two occasions to promote his column. All of this was
enough for the court in that case to determine that Matt Drudge had substantial contacts with the
District;
• Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (1997): An Arizona plaintiff suing for trademark infringement
argued that a Florida defendant's mere use of the same trademark in its home page was
sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The Florida defendant had "no contacts with Arizona other
than maintaining a home page that was accessible to anyone over the Internet." The court
declined to exercise jurisdiction, noting the Florida defendant "did nothing to encourage
residents of Arizona to access its site, and there [was] no evidence that any part of its business
(let alone a continuous part of its business) was sought or achieved in Arizona." The

6. circumstances lacked the "something more" necessary "to indicate that the defendant
purposefully... directed his activity in a substantial way to the forum state."
Consenting to Jurisdiction over Your Business
A court can obtain personal jurisdiction if both parties consent to such jurisdiction. The most common
type of consent is where a company is required to consent, in advance, to personal jurisdiction in a state
for incorporating or organizing a business under the laws of that state. State business organization
statutes require that a business provide the secretary of state with an agent to accept service of process.
An Internet business can also consent to the court's jurisdiction by filing a response to a lawsuit filed
with that court.
Similarly, you may grant consent by signing a contract that has a provision requiring you agree in
advance to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of a state. For example, a California website
developer may sign an agreement with an Illinois service provider containing a clause stating: "The
parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in Cook County,
Illinois, in any action arising out of or relating to this agreement. The parties waive any other venue to
which either party might be entitled by domicile or otherwise." (However, the States of Montana and
Idaho do refuse to recognize such clauses).
You have now been introduced to the catch 22 of e-commerce! The Internet provides a great way for
small businesses to operate and achieve massive growth. Unfortunately, such growth will inevitably
expose your business to foreign jurisdiction and the ability to be hauled into court in some distant State.
If you want to guarantee that you will avoid this risk and you plan on operating a commercial website,
you will surely sacrifice sales and growth.
This article was written by Philip A. Nicolosi, J.D. Mr. Nicolosi provides legal services through his law
firm, Phil Nicolosi Law, P.C., focusing on startup and small business law, Internet & technology law
and commercial transactions.
Mr. Nicolosi serves as a trusted advisor to numerous startups and small to medium sized businesses.
This includes representation for a wide range of business law matters including business organization,
corporate/LLC governance, regulatory law, contracts and transactions and most other matters outside of
litigation. Mr. Nicolosi provides guidance with e-commerce, Internet and mobile marketing and
technology-related legal matters to many of his business clients. He also assists startups with seed
funding and venture capital law.
Mr. Nicolosi is also the founder of InternetLegalArmor (www.internetlegalarmor.com), an automated
custom website legal document solution.
Visit Phil Nicolosi Law now, or contact Mr. Nicolosi directly by sending an email to
info@philnicolosilaw.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Philip_A._Nicolosi,_J.D./167462

7. Selecting the Best Type of Internet Service
Provider for Your Needs
By Ester Wilson | Submitted On December 19, 2013
An Internet service provider (ISP) is a type of company that provides the capability to access the
internet. There are different forms of Internet service provider or ISP such as commercial, community-
owned and privately owned. It is necessary to carefully choose the type of Internet service that these
companies offer. There are many ways from which you can connect to the internet but it depends
whether it is available in your area. At present, most ISP's use dial-up or DSL, cable television line or
satellite connection to connect to the internet.
Before the Internet service providers were introduced to the market, there was limited access to the
internet and only those who had an affiliation to a participating university or government agency had
the privilege. It was in the late 90's when the number of Internet service providers had significantly
increased to approximately 10,000 around the world, with more than half of it is located in the U.S.
Most of the Internet service providers back then were small companies that made a contract for internet
services from larger ISP companies such as America Online and offered their services to clients and
businesses. AOL became the leading provider for ISP's around the world. At around the same time,
many state-owned ISP's in Asia entered the business. The dial-up Internet service provider AOL had its
downfall when customers shifted to broadband service for faster internet connection.
Dial-up requires that you have access to a land-line telephone service to connect to the internet. The
normal download speed of 24-48 Kbps is a bit slow and it's not recommended when downloading huge
files over the internet or watching full HD videos on YouTube, but occasional users who only tend to
check their emails regularly, browse web pages or visit social networking sites such as Facebook or
Twitter will be fine using dial-up connection.
Satellite uses wireless internet connection and is much faster than dial-up. Usually, the quality of the
connection is affected by weather conditions. People who like to go online when DSL internet or Cable
internet is not available in their area would consider the satellite as an alternative however; it lacks the
ability to connect to streaming content such as YouTube videos and online radios.
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) or Cable internet is designed for those who are using the internet
primarily for downloading huge amounts of data and media consumption such as video call, online
videos and large files. The average download speed of DSL is 3 Mbps whereas cable internet is faster at
4-6 Mbps. On the other hand, high-end cable speeds average from 12-20 Mbps. Another option would
be the use of mobile device technology such as cellular phone, tablet or laptop. For these devices to
work, you need an ISP that offers a 2G, 3G and 4G wireless connection. Whilst these devices can be

8. useful, they provide only a limited amount of data that you can use to surf the net but if the user is
registered to a monthly unlimited data plan, he or she can enjoy web browsing for months using
wireless internet.
So finally where can you compare the plans and features to decide on which high speed Internet service
is right for you? http://www.switchtobroadband.com/ is a website to compare variety of speed plans
side by side. You can also compare plans to bundle your Internet service with TV or home phone and
save money.
If you want to search ISPs by your area we found http://www.ispprovidersinmyarea.com, which will
help you figure out what services are available in your zip code. They have all types of internet plans
like cable, DSL, Satellite and wireless internet, where you can easily search by zip code and find the
ISPs that best fits your budget and needs.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Ester_Wilson/1727270
Boosting Internet Access Resilience, ISP
Multihoming Explained
By Andre P Ferreira | Submitted On August 16, 2013
1
Abstract
Internet access for organisations today is no longer about connectivity for email and web browsing. A
stable Internet connection is a vital component in the chain of IT systems required to conduct business.
Typically, in the past, the focus around Internet connectivity has been on cost, with vendors providing
solutions allowing organisations to spread their traffic across consumer and enterprise products. This
approach is all good and well, and can provide significant cost savings, especially when employee
traffic is directed over low-cost consumer products such as ADSL, however, when you are conducting

9. B2B business through front end servers hosted in your DMZ, resilience becomes a major concern. In
this scenario, a dead Internet link can mean loss of revenue and even, potentially more serious, brand
damage. In this paper we discuss a number of methods that can be used to improve the resilience of an
Internet link. While this sounds like it should be a simple case of connecting to multiple Internet
Service Providers, the devil as they say, is in the detail.
Mission critical Internet
Business networks have been mission critical for some time now and the focus on resilience and
business continuity has always been top of any CIO's mind, however, the general areas of interest for
this focus were restricted to internal networks and systems. With more and more business being
conducted either directly via the web or via B2B over Internet links to systems hosted in DMZ's, it is
simply no longer permissible for an Internet link to be down. Loss of access to the Internet can have a
direct impact on revenue generation, especially today as the business operating models begin shifting
towards off site cloud computing and software as a service.
A solution to the problem
Multihoming is essentially a method whereby a company can connect to more than one ISP at the same
time. The concept was born out of the need to protect Internet access in the event of either an ISP link
failure or an ISP internal failure. In the earlier days of Internet access, most traffic was outbound with
the exception of email. An Internet link failure left internal users with no browsing capability and with
email backing up on inbound ISP mail gateways. Once the link was restored so was browsing and
email delivery. The direct impact to the business was relatively small and mostly not revenue effecting.
Early solutions to this problem were to connect multiple links to the same ISP, but while this offered
some level of link resilience, it could provide no safeguards against an internal ISP failure.
Today, however, most organisations deploy a myriad of on-site Internet accessible services such as
VPN's, voice services, webmail and secure internal system access while also making use of business
critical off site services such as software as a service (SaaS) and other cloud based solutions.
Furthermore, while corporate front-end websites are traditionally hosted offsite with web hosting firms,
the real-time information on the corporate websites and B2B sites is provided by back-end systems
based in the corporate data centre or DMZ. Without a good quality Internet connection, these vital links
would be severed.
Varied requirements and complexity
That said, the requirement for multihoming are varied and could range from the simple need for
geographic link diversity (single ISP) to full link and ISP resilience where separate links are run from
separate data centres to different ISP's. While the complexity varies for each option, the latter forms the
most complex deployment option, but affords the highest availability, with the former providing some
degree of protection, but does requiring a higher grade of ISP.
A major component of the complexity comes in around IP addressing. The way the Internet IP
addressing system works is that each ISP applies for a range of addresses from the central Internet
registrar in their region. They would then allocate a range of IP addresses, called an address space, to
their customers from this pool. It goes without saying that no two ISP's can issue the same address
space to a customer.
Why would this be a problem? Simply put, it's all about routing. Routing is the process whereby the
Internet finds out how to get traffic to your particular server. It's a bit like the Google map for the
Internet. For somebody to find your server, a "route" or path needs to exist to the IP address of your
server. Since you are getting your Internet service, and hence your IP address space, from your ISP,
they are responsible for publishing the route to your server across the entire Internet. They are

10. effectively the source of your route and nobody else can do that for your particular address space. You
can see how things can go wrong if the ISP suffers some form of internal failure. If your particular
route disappeared, your server would simply vanish from the Internet, even if your Internet link was up
and running. This is precisely the kind of issue multihoming tries to solve, but for completeness we will
start at the more simple options and work our way up.
Single Link, Single ISP, Multiple address spaces
While not a multihoming solution in the strictest sense of the term, the single link, multiple address
option can be useful for small sites. In this scenario the publicly accessible host is assigned two IP
addresses from two different address spaces. You would, of course, need two address spaces from your
ISP for this to work. Thus, theoretically, if a routing issue occurs that impacts one of the address spaces
the other may still be available. The single physical ISP link is of course a single point of failure and
this option would seem to offer little in the form of real resilience.
Multiple links, Single ISP, Single address spaces per link
This scenario, generally called multi-attached, is a variation on the above where the site now connects
through multiple links each with a different IP address space, but still via single ISP. If one of the links
fails, its IP addresses would become unreachable, however the other IP address on the remaining link
will still be available and your server would still be reachable. Internet Service Providers use a control
protocol to manage their IP routes called Border Gateway Protocol or BGP. This protocol is used to
manage the traffic re-routing over the live link. BGP can be complex and demands at lot from the
equipment it runs on. Of course, with complexity comes cost, however, the BGP deployment for this
scenario is not as onerous as with a fully multihomed site and should not attract too much attention
from the CFO. While the deployment is a simpler version of full multihoming, it does restrict the
corporate to a single ISP, which may not be part of the strategic intent of the business.
Multiple Links, Multiple ISP, Single address space
This scenario is what is generally meant when discussing multihoming. The BGP protocol is used to
manage the visibility of the single address space across the multiple links and ISP's and, thus, maintain
the routes. The BGP protocol communicates between the corporate routers and those of the two ISP's
with the protocol being able to detect link failure and divert traffic to the functioning link even if this is
via a different ISP network.
What's the catch?
There is always a catch, and in this case there are actually a number of them. To run true dual ISP
multihoming and BGP as a corporate you would need your own Provider Independent (PI) IP address
space and you would need to apply for a unique BGP Autonomous System Number (ASN). The AS
Number is used to identify your site as a valid Internet location in the eyes of BGP. While applying for
an ASN is not an onerous undertaking, it does place some significant responsibility squarely with you
instead of the ISP. Deploying BGP effectively brings your organisation one step closer to the Internet
by making you responsible for advertising your own public IP address spaces and, thus, your routes. It
also means that any operational mistakes you make will ripple through the entire Internet in spectacular
fashion.
Address space considerations
Most large organisations that operate true multihoming already have their own Provider Independent
address space. This is an address space that they requested directly from the local Internet registrar
themselves some time ago, before IP version 4 (IPv4) addresses started running out. Today it is
virtually impossible to be allocated a PI address space from the IPv4 pool. It is possible to run a

11. multihomed scenario by using ISP provided IP address spaces, but the network configurations become
considerably more complex and at some point start defeating the end goal of increasing resilience. In
the real world, increased complexity seldom equates to improved resilience.
Scaling
A true BGP enabled multihoming deployment (often known as running defaultless) will require
hardware that is capable of storing IP routing tables of Internet scale. This is desirable as it protects the
organisation from an internal ISP failure, however requires the routers on-site to be of a "carrier grade",
in other words, big and beefy. The Internet routing tables are massive and vast amount of processing
power and memory will be required to run defaultless. It is possible to run in a reduced route mode
where only local prefixes are stored on the routers, but given the effort and expense of deploying a full
multihomed solution, compromise should not really be part of the conversation.
Summary
While there are definite advantages to full multihoming, there are also some significant caveats.
Complexity and scaling aside the real reasons and costs for considering multihoming should be
carefully considered.
That said, for a highly Internet dependent organisation there is no better way to ensure high availability
and performance than through true multihoming. A Provider Independent IP address space will be
required as well as carrier grade routers configured in a geographically diverse manner and supported
by suitably qualified support staff. The benefits can outweigh the costs when direct revenue is
generated through the Internet, and multihoming can, thus, be seen not only as a strategic business
initiative, but also something that can help CIO's sleep well at night.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Andre_P_Ferreira/1671989