Re: Possible bug with UDP and SO_REUSEADDR.

[David Schwartz]

>However, I still can't see any *practical* use of having one program
>(me) bind the port, deliberately share it, and another program (you)
>coming along and want to share it, and then all unicast datagrams are
>passed to you. Not If I haven't subscribed to any multicast addresses,
>and no one is sending bcasts, there is no point of me being alive.
>
>Can you come up with a real life situation where this make sense?

	Absolutely. This is actually used in cases where you have a 'default' 
handler for a protocol that is built into a larger program but want to keep 
the option to 'override' it with a program with more sophisticated behavior 
from time to time. In this case, the last socket should get all the data 
until it goes away.

	DS