Early Review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06
review-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06-intdir-early-bernardos-2016-05-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2016-08-02
Requested 2016-05-17
Authors Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter
Draft last updated 2016-05-25
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Ben Laurie (diff)
Intdir Early review of -06 by Carlos Bernardos (diff)
Intdir Early review of -06 by Zhen Cao (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Bernardos 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06-intdir-early-bernardos-2016-05-25
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-05-25

Review
review-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06-intdir-early-bernardos-2016-05-25

(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