(resending again because I use a wrong draft authors alias address, apologies) Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-multi- homed-host-06.txt. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/direc torate.html. Overall, the document is mature, well written and I find it useful. I do not see any reason to hold up publication. Some suggestions/comments follow: - Abstract: it talks about 'expected IPv6 behavior in a network that has more than one prefix'. I think the use of the word "network" might be misleading, because the scenarios covered are not limited to a host connected to a single multihomed network. Also a multihomed host connected to multiple networks is covered (as shown in Figure 2, right side). I think it would be good to use a different wording to be more inclusive of all the scenarios covered. - Section 1.1: expand "RA". - Section 1.1: it would be good to clarify a bit more the example of a host with a link-local-interface can have a default route pointing to that route. It is implicit that that host has some other interface with a routable address, but this is not explicitly mentioned and the example might not be easy to follow. - Section 3.1, Figure 3: is Bob connected to one single multihomed network or to two networks? In the figure it seems that is the latter, but the text refers to 'Bob's network is multihomed'. As in the abstract, the text is not completely clear. - Section 4: not sure it is necessary to mention that one of the authors' network setup is as described in the example. Thanks, Carlos