Darren Reed writes: > 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.)
Why can't ipadm have or be given a generic-enough name to cover the transports as well? Having a profusion of *adm utilities in this area is likely to add to confusion, particularly as there are probably shared bits at this level. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
