d/freebsd-skq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

some reasoning why we separated ping(8) and ping6(8)

Browse Source 
comments/additions/corrections are welcome.

Obtained from:	KAME
This commit is contained in:
ume 2001-02-22 19:00:51 +00:00
parent 36a4891147
commit aba557bd7c
1 changed files with 29 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

29
sbin/ping6/ping6.8
View File

@ -407,6 +407,35 @@ and non-zero if the arguments are incorrect or the host is not responding.
.%D October 22, 1999
.%O work in progress material
.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
The
.Nm ping