some reasoning why we separated ping(8) and ping6(8)
comments/additions/corrections are welcome. Obtained from: KAME
This commit is contained in:
parent
51c9129957
commit
650d202dbd
Notes:
svn2git
2020-12-20 02:59:44 +00:00
svn path=/head/; revision=72914
@ -407,6 +407,35 @@ and non-zero if the arguments are incorrect or the host is not responding.
|
|||||||
.%D October 22, 1999
|
.%D October 22, 1999
|
||||||
.%O work in progress material
|
.%O work in progress material
|
||||||
.Re
|
.Re
|
||||||
|
.Sh BUGS
|
||||||
|
There have been many discussions on why we separate
|
||||||
|
.Xr ping6 8
|
||||||
|
and
|
||||||
|
.Xr 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.
|
||||||
|
.Pp
|
||||||
|
From a developer's point of view:
|
||||||
|
since the underling 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.
|
||||||
|
.Pp
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
.Xr ping 8
|
||||||
|
command for both IPv4 and IPv6, we would usually type a
|
||||||
|
.Fl 6
|
||||||
|
or
|
||||||
|
.Fl 4
|
||||||
|
option (or something like those) to specify the particular address family.
|
||||||
|
This essentially means that we have two different commands.
|
||||||
.Sh HISTORY
|
.Sh HISTORY
|
||||||
The
|
The
|
||||||
.Nm ping
|
.Nm ping
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user