Well I guess my logic is that if you have each site either multi-homed, or at least on different networks (a given anyway), then you can have a LB at each site

Well I guess my logic is that if you have each site either multi-homed, or at least on different networks (a given anyway), then you can have a LB at each site with the same net result - this is basically your vanilla active-active scenario. In either case - Unless you go for a high-end solution, the catastrophic-scenario-DNS-juggling doesn't really go away. As for the relative risk, I agree. The problem is the risk approaches companies use tend to make this kind of thing compulsory for them. All the raw calcs I've seen rarely justify this kind of expense - the cost-benefit, against, say, a 1 day turnaround to configure a new site (two sites is usually a lot more than double the cost as there is all the other factors e.g. additional/routine testing that's introduced). ... but then companies will factor in less tangible risks, like reputational damage, etc, which can be a bit of black magic... Of course, if you're a bank, or a hospital this might be right, but I suspect in most cases it's off-base.