Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:12:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Jamie Bowden <jamie@itribe.net> Cc: "Eric A. Davis" <edavis@nas.nasa.gov>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, FreeBSD-Hackers <FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: network programming. Message-ID: <19970912091226.55828@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199709121249.IAA17231@gatekeeper.itribe.net>; from Jamie Bowden on Sep 09, 1997 at 08:57:07AM -0400 References: <199709112327.QAA10762@shark.nas.nasa.gov> <199709121249.IAA17231@gatekeeper.itribe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 09, 1997 at 08:57:07AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote: > If tcpdump does all traffic on an interface, shouldn't it be renamed to > reflect that capability? Not having used tcpdump, based on the name, I > would have thought it was for monitoring tcp traffic, and wouldn't do udp. Well, it basically dumps any traffic on the interface, whether the traffic is IP, DECNET, ICMP, so it could be called ``etherdump''. However, I believe that name is already in use for different tool, provided by Sun. Also, tcpdump now understands other transport protocols (like FDDI), so that wouldn't be accurate either. Perhaps ``netdump'' would be more accurate name? Regardless, I think that the name is firmly established in the literature, and it would be confusing to change it at this point. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970912091226.55828>