Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:40:47 +0400 From: mp39590@gmail.com To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Merge ping+ping6 and traceroue+traceroute6 to single utilities? Message-ID: <20140111164047.GA97150@edge.bac.lab> In-Reply-To: <1063008459.20140111160525@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1063008459.20140111160525@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16:05 11-Jan 2014 Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Net. > > Is here any project to merge ping/ping6 into ping and > traceroute/traceroute6 into treaceroute? As IPv6 becomes more common these > days, it is very inconvenient to have these utilities separated. > Good evening, Lev. Quoting ping6(8) (and personally, I'm agree with those arguments): There have been many discussions on why we separate ping6 and ping(8). Some people argued that it would be more convenient to uniform the ping command for both IPv4 and IPv6. The followings are an answer to the request. >From a developer's point of view: since the underling raw sockets API is totally different between IPv4 and IPv6, we would end up having two types of code base. There would actually be less benefit to uniform the two commands into a single command from the developer's standpoint. >From an operator's point of view: unlike ordinary network applications like remote login tools, we are usually aware of address family when using network management tools. We do not just want to know the reachability to the host, but want to know the reachability to the host via a particular network protocol such as IPv6. Thus, even if we had a unified ping(8) command for both IPv4 and IPv6, we would usually type a -6 or -4 option (or something like those) to specify the particular address family. This essentially means that we have two different commands.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140111164047.GA97150>