> Why can't ipadm have or be given a generic-enough name to cover the > transports as well?
I worry about the command becoing a garbage can. The natural objects for ipadm are IP addresses and IP interfaces (and perhaps IP logical interface IDs). Adding transport port numbers to the mix, along with the union of all administrative objects/actions related to UDP, TCP, SCTP, RDS, et al. seems questionable to me. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
