On (10/30/08 12:21), Darren Reed wrote: > If we're having ipadm, then we should also have tcpadm and udpadm. > > transadm just doesn't fit (besides sounding like a toxic food ingredient.) >
I prefer "xpadm" myself (lesser typing) but that sounds like the adm for a trade-marked OS :-) However, the idea was to have an administrative interface that was approximately one per OSI layer, and the motivation was that these interfaces, at least for the TCP/IP family of protocols, would operate on a similar set of objects. I'd like to hear other thoughts around this. If we have tcpadm and udpadm, then what about sctpadm, dhcpadm and all the other protocols? Where do we stop the explosion? --Sowmini
