Merge ping+ping6 and traceroue+traceroute6 to single utilities?

[Chris H]

> If you don't mind me saying... That is utter BS without the D.
>
> Doing it right and merging these two would leave for more constructive use.
> Nobody is saying that it really needs to perform v6 & v4 without
> interaction in the form of the user adding a switch and there is no reason
> that by default it could not just default to using 4 only leaving room for
> a later point to just switch its default to v6 when that time comes and
> calls for it.
>
> Secondly just because they would be merged does not mean there won't or
> can't be a convention of detecting how the program was called. Symlink ping
> to ping6 for interchangeability sake and the same could be done whenever
> the default for ping would change to v6 by Symlinking ping to ping4.
>
> And there is no reason why ping could not just do both and you as the
> operator pick up the tab and just learn to call ping4 when you need to.
>
> Quite frankly I am tired of seeing the old pessimism and paradigms that
> projects keep falling into over silly little subtle changes.
>
> ping localhost ("grab any name, you just want to know its alive")
> ping 127.0.0.1 ("you know you are pinging v4 without a doubt")
> ping ::1 ("you also know you are pinging v6 without a doubt")
>
> ping -4 localhost ("you know you are getting v4 without a doubt")
> ping -6 localhost ("you know you are getting v6 without a doubt")
>
> ping -4 ::1 ("must be retarded in some way")
>
> There is no reason whatsoever that these utilities cannot be combined. And
> there is one very valid reason they should be.
>
> Maybe someone should call fyodor and ask him to make a nmap6 and a nping6
> to follow convention while the rest of the platforms work on combining.
>
>

Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. The answer seems so simple;
Unify it, then call it ping64.
See, now everyone gets what they want. :)
Oh, or should that be ping46?
...

--Chris

>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Thomas Steen Rasmussen
> <thomas at gibfest.dk>wrote:
>
>> On 11-01-2014 14:36, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>>
>>> Normal network enabled utilities like telnet or ftp or nc support
>>>> both because when using those you usually don't care about the
>>>> address family used, you just want to connect. This is a significant
>>>> difference from using ping or traceroute where you almost always
>>>> want a specific address family, depending on what you are testing.
>>>>
>>> I strongly disagree with the "almost always want a specific address
>>> family". I normally want to verify that the IP at the other end is
>>> alive, or get some idea of how to get there. If I want a specific
>>> address family I'm very happy to use -4 / -6 options.
>>>
>>
>> The IP at the other end will, by definition, always be either v4 or v6,
>> so yes, you do want a specific address family - namely the family your
>> IP belongs to.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Thomas Steen Rasmussen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>