DNS load is typically fairly light, because it's just a few packets per hit. You certainly don't need 6x redundancy, and if one server gets most of the traffic it's probably no biggie.
1) You shouldn't expect even or consistent load balancing across servers. Some caching DNS servers (such as those at large ISPs) have very many downstream consumers, and they won't do any randomization. If a large DNS server sees a new order of records, it might trigger a synchronous switch of 10% of your customer base from one server to another. This will cause spiky traffic.
2) You can't rely on any kind of sticky sessions. This may or may not be a problem, and many load balancers drop this guarantee as well for performance reasons, but it is certainly possible that a client may see a DNS records TTL expire and switch to a new IP. If you aren't prepared for that you may start dropping sessions.
There are a couple of caveats to your load balancing strategy. With enough headroom, these probably aren't total game breakers, but you should be aware of them. More at http://serverfault.com/questions/60553/why-is-dns-failover-n...
1) You shouldn't expect even or consistent load balancing across servers. Some caching DNS servers (such as those at large ISPs) have very many downstream consumers, and they won't do any randomization. If a large DNS server sees a new order of records, it might trigger a synchronous switch of 10% of your customer base from one server to another. This will cause spiky traffic.
2) You can't rely on any kind of sticky sessions. This may or may not be a problem, and many load balancers drop this guarantee as well for performance reasons, but it is certainly possible that a client may see a DNS records TTL expire and switch to a new IP. If you aren't prepared for that you may start dropping sessions.