Early Review of draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-09
review-ietf-hip-multihoming-09-intdir-early-jiang-2016-07-05-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-09.
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/directorate.html.



This Standards Track document provides defines host multihoming extensions to
HIP. As an update document from RFC 5206, this document is well written. It is
almost read for publication. I have one major and one minor
 comments as blow.



The security analysis of this document is weak. It states that “No additional
security considerations beyond those outlined in [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis]
have been identified.” [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis] is dedicated
 for mobility. However, there are many multi-homing specific security issues. I
 would like to see more security analysis against security threats that are
 mentioned by RFC 4218, Threats Relating to IPv6 Multihoming Solutions.



Minor comment (bridged from Brian Carpenter):



In the Introducation Section:



> Solutions for site multihoming in IPv6 networks

> have been specified by the IETF shim6 working group.



Shim6 is a host-based solution, so although can be used inside multihomed sites,

it is not correct to call it "site multihoming". Better to write



Solutions for host multihoming in multihomed IPv6 networks

have been specified by the IETF shim6 working group.



Best regards,



Sheng