On 2006-11-02 20:48, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 04:46:21AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-11-02 18:34, Josh Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >Can we have something that doesn't need one option letter for each >>> >protocol, protocol family or socket type, please? :) >>> >>> I'd be willing to modify it to take a -P argument with one of: >>> >>> tcp >>> udp >>> tcp,udp >>> udp,tcp >>> >>> If the consensus is to add -P, I'd be happy to make the changes. I >>> assume without -P we'd want to show both, so perhaps udp,tcp and >>> tcp,udp aren't necessary. >> >> Quite right. If the default is to show *both*, then we only need to >> specify one of them in the -P argument. If you want, for the sake of >> completeness to support the "-P proto[,proto]" syntax too, that's also >> fine, I guess :) > > We're getting SCTP support RSN so that's probably a good idea...
Precisely. This is why I said "for the sake of completeness", since adding the support for proto[,proto] parsing will make this immensely easier when sctp gets committed to CVS :)
pgp3mDQ0VG29A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
