> If the multiple addresses have different prefixes, then the packets will be
> routed through different paths. This provides a useful failover situation,
> from a failing provider to a valid provider, even if the interface is the
> same.
This can be one criterion in picking multiple addresses fr
> To give a v4-specific listener priority over a v6 listener is not up
> to the API but the stack's PCB lookup function, yes? The only reason
> I can see for a sockopt is to allow overriding this behavior -- but
> the v6 application could do this more simply by binding to the v4
> address (be it
> Forget the socket level option--just adopt the SCTP solution in
> general. If you are going to allow binding to subsets of addresses
> you might as well make it completely general.
Allowing bind() to subsets of addresses does not necessarily mean that such
option is of no use. A SCTP app may
> Blech! In SCTP we need to allow binding on arbitrary subsets of
> addresses. Our solution is to allow multiple calls to bind(). There
> is nothing special about the sets "all IPv4 addresses" and "all IPv6
> addresses" (well, there shouldn't be...).
This is a point which is not clear in the c
