The questions of what various routers do now or did in the past is irrelevant. So, to wrap it up: RFC 1546 give this rule about internetwork architecture on page 5: An internetwork has no obligation to deliver two successive packets sent to the same anycast address to the same host. Whether it used to be impossible to utilize this rule, and whether anyone actually presently uses this rule is irrelevant to the question of what rules one needs to follow when building anycast systems. RFC 1546 gives some rules to follow, and they are violated at the peril of the internetwork. TCP "vixie-cast" violates this rule. It imposes the new rule that "an internetwork MUST deliver to successive packets sent to the SAME anycast address to the SAME host." And no one has thought much about the implications of that rule, (other than the original architects of RFC 1546). Sure, it sort of happens most of the time with current routers and current configurations, but load balancing over diverse paths isn't limited to being slow and per-flow. There are no IETF rules that require that behavior. Implementors of networks and routers are free to use the RFC 1546 design rule. Assurances that typically, it happens that no one can "deliver two successive packets sent to same anyast IP address to different hosts" is no defense for TCP "vixie-cast" having violated the design principles given for anycast in RFC 1546. It is also objectionable to calling something "TCP anycast" that isn't TCP anycast according to RFC 1546. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000