bikeshed for all!

[Marko Zec]

On Friday 14 December 2007 00:01:32 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id',
> > 'FIBid', or ...  as that's what it is called these days.
>
> inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix
> to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the tableid name used in
> openBSD for compat reasons, and its succinct.
>
> however in the user visible portion I'm still lookig for a name for
> the utility.. (similar to nice, jail, chroot)
>
> looking for something that flows off the fingers nicely..
>
> fib 1 ping 1.1.1.1
>
> might work for me
> #
> # fib 1 sysctl net.my_fib
> 1
> #
> #
>
>
> since I've never heard of it before I don't know how standard FIB is?
>
> setfib 1 (mumble)
>
> I think the contenders are:
>
>
> Base                        short version             utility name
> ==================================================================
> instance  (ala Juniper)     inst? rtinst              rtinst
> vrf (ala cisco)                                       vrf, setvrf
> fib   ala someone else                                fib, setfib

I think with vrf / instance (Cisco / Juniper) concepts it is assumed 
that local interface addressing in each vrf is completely independent, 
whereas in your framework each local interface, regardles to which 
rt_table instance it belongs, must have a unique local IP address.  So 
you have my vote against (mis)using the terms vrf, instance, and 
perhaps even against fib.

table / rtable / rttable / tableid etc. sound like much better bikeshed 
colors to me...

Marko

> and a late contender:
>
> routes 1 ping 1.1.1.1
> (note plural)