Code change:
// AUTO-GENERATED FUNCTIONS START HERE. DO NOT EDIT. var map_Endpoint = map[string]string{ "":                   "Endpoint represents a single logical "backend" implementing a service.", <del> "addresses":          "addresses of this endpoint. The contents of this field are interpreted according to the corresponding EndpointSlice addressType field. Consumers must handle different types of addresses in the context of their own capabilities. This must contain at least one address but no more than 100.", </del> <ins> "addresses":          "addresses of this endpoint. The contents of this field are interpreted according to the corresponding EndpointSlice addressType field. Consumers must handle different types of addresses in the context of their own capabilities. This must contain at least one address but no more than 100. These are all assumed to be fungible and clients may choose to only use the first element. Refer to: https://issue.k8s.io/106267", </ins> "conditions":         "conditions contains information about the current status of the endpoint.", "hostname":           "hostname of this endpoint. This field may be used by consumers of endpoints to distinguish endpoints from each other (e.g. in DNS names). Multiple endpoints which use the same hostname should be considered fungible (e.g. multiple A values in DNS). Must be lowercase and pass DNS Label (RFC 1123) validation.", "targetRef":          "targetRef is a reference to a Kubernetes object that represents this endpoint.",

Related discussion:
text: Given the number of changes currently in flight for kube-proxy, documentation seems like a safer initial approach to me.
/assign
can I have this editing only the first address(Address[0]) in Endpoint.Address to be used. The use of an array in this field is based on historical reasons. Isn't that right
thanks for volunteering to help with this one! I know has some big kube-proxy changes/fixes in flight right now, so it would be good to be sure you don't conflict with him. Otherwise, as long as isn't already working on this, I think you're free to have it.
I don't think we agreed that the array is for historical reasons only. We aren't currently using it, but we aren't ready to say that we won't use it in the future at this point. So, the docs should warn that kube-proxy currently ignores additional addresses, but it shouldn't imply that it's actually wrong to have additional addresses I'm not
thanks i will work on this
It was for a reason, but I think that reason was mixed-family slices (before we decided to break it up into single-family slices). What would it mean to have multiple addresses here? Are they assumed to be equivalent? Or do they have different context (like a split-horizon)? If the latter, there isn't any metadata here (i.e. it's not a struct like to allow new fields). I am inclined to believe it was meant as equivalent, and as such it's probably OK to document that assumption clearly. That said, I don't see how anyone could use multiple addresses in a meaningful way - they are either assumed equivalent or they lack enough metadata to distinguish their differences. ?? If we do document the equivalence, it should be generically worded. E.g. "These addresses are assumed to be equivalent and some consumers may choose to ignore all but the first value."
if it was meant as equivalent, why put multiple same addresses into Addresses? I don't understand what the purpose of this is.
The first version of the API had both IP families in a single slice, so it made sense to have multiple addresses. We changed that, though we didn't immediately remove the old support. So my best guess is that we should have converted this to a singular value when we did that, but we missed it.