netWrite only takes data, and passes null as address and as control data to sendmsg. netSend on the other hand does take control as argument, which implies that this a functionality that is intended to be exposed. However it also takes an address, which is not optional so there's no way to use it on any connected socket, because passing an address with a connected socket results in an EISCONN.
.ISCONN => |err| return syscall.errnoBug(err), // connection-mode socket was connected already but a recipient was specified
The comment next the error handling suggests that address should be allowed to be left out, however that's not the case.
Making address an optional field in net.OutgoingMessage seems like a straight forward solution to this problem.
`netWrite` only takes data, and passes null as address and as control data to `sendmsg`. `netSend` on the other hand does take control as argument, which implies that this a functionality that is intended to be exposed. However it also takes an address, which is not optional so there's no way to use it on any connected socket, because passing an address with a connected socket results in an `EISCONN`.
```
.ISCONN => |err| return syscall.errnoBug(err), // connection-mode socket was connected already but a recipient was specified
```
The comment next the error handling suggests that address should be allowed to be left out, however that's not the case.
Making `address` an optional field in `net.OutgoingMessage` seems like a straight forward solution to this problem.