What is the difference between IPv6 unicast and anycast addressing?
What is the difference between IPv6 unicast and anycast addressing?
An individual IPv6 unicast address is assigned to a single interface on one node, which means it uniquely identifies a device on the network. In contrast, an IPv6 anycast address is assigned to a group of interfaces on multiple nodes. When a packet is sent to an anycast address, it is delivered to the nearest or most optimal node in the group, based on the routing protocol's determination. This fundamental difference in how the addresses are assigned and their intended use cases is the key distinction between IPv6 unicast and anycast addressing.
Aren't both A and B correct?
Both IPv6 anycast and unicast nodes require configuration, but the nature of the configuration differs between the two. Anycast nodes need explicit configuration to recognize the anycast address, while unicast nodes also require configuration, such as unique IPv6 addresses and network parameters.
A is correct.
A is correct
it´s A
I think B is not that correct. To implement anycast in a network, we need to do some special configuration on the router, so that the router recognize the address as an anycast address. But we don't have to do this on end devices, which are "IPv6 anycast nodes" referred in the option B. Source: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipv6_basic/configuration/xe-16-5/ip6b-xe-16-5-book/ip6-anycast-add-xe.pdf
It says in ur own link that "Anycast addresses can be used only by a device, not a host"
Option 'A' is correct, and 'B' is not. It is how one interprets "special configuration". It would appear that this implies configuring an IPv6 address on the interface.
A makes most sense
Any one can explain why A is better than B?
Why B is not correct ?
A and B are correct. What's wrong with B?