> this does 2 things:
> [...]

I may recall what I have sent to you in private email, excerpt from FreeBSD ping6 manpage:


--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------
There have been many discussions on why we separate ping6 and ping(8).
Some people argued that it would be more convenient to uniform the ping
command for both IPv4 and IPv6. The followings are an answer to the request.

From a developer's point of view: since the underling raw sockets API is
totally different between IPv4 and IPv6, we would end up having two types of code base. There would actually be less benefit to uniform the two commands into a single command from the developer's standpoint.

From an operator's point of view: unlike ordinary network applications like remote login tools, we are usually aware of address family when using network management tools. We do not just want to know the
reachability to the host, but want to know the reachability to the host
via a particular network protocol such as IPv6.  Thus, even if we had a
unified ping(8) command for both IPv4 and IPv6, we would usually type a
-6 or -4 option (or something like those) to specify the particular
address family.  This essentially means that we have two different
commands.
--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------

When we have two binaries I have more trust when one of them is working *only* with IPv4 and another one *only* with IPv6.

So, what user problems are you trying to solve with this merge?

Reply via email to