> This wording was in response to comments by Bernard Aboba about the
> design of anycast in IPv6, and obviously came before the IPv6 anycast
> analysis draft came out. According to Bernard's comments, the current
> specs disallow this use. I've cc'ed him on this so he can comment on
> any further discussion. Pending further comment, I will plan to
> incorporate the change.
many people are working on un-breaking v6 anycast
>> One potential problem with using shared unicast addresses is that
>> routers forwarding traffic to them may have more than one available
>> route, and those routes may, in fact, reach different instances of
>> the shared unicast address. Some applications, whose communication
>> consists of independent request-response messages each fitting in a
>> single UDP packet presents no problem. Other applications, in which
/
>> multiple packets must reach the same endpoint (e.g., TCP) may fail
>> or present unworkable performance characteristics in some
>> circumstances. Split-destination failures may occur when a router
>> does per-packet (or round-robin) load sharing, a topology change
^ and/or when
>> occurs that changes the relative metrics of two paths to the same
>> anycast destination, etc.
