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. Thank authors for this work. Overall, this is a well-written draft. It clearly specifies what a multi-homed host needs to take into account while making default route and source address selections, especially when a certain in-path filter/middleboxes may prevent successful communication. One cent for discussion as below: >3.2. Default Router Selection > >Default Router Selection is modified as follows: A host SHOULD select >default routers for each prefix it is assigned an address in. >Routers that have advertised the prefix in its Router Advertisement >message SHOULD be preferred over routers that do not advertise the >prefix. If both routers have not advertised the prefix, how will the host make the decision? A normal daily example is a host being connected to the Internet via one router, and at the same time connected to a VPN to a private domain which is further connected to global Internet. If the host initiates communication with some public internet address(not advertised by either link), it is sometimes undefined which route to take because both links connect to that destination. From my understanding, route metric will be take into account in this case. I do experience different VPN clients behave differently because their assignment of the VPN link metric. A note to this case might be useful for readers. Many thanks, Zhen