>  > 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?

Mikhail, with great regret I am informing you that the opinion of some
random gmail user does not actually matter around here.

Reply via email to