On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:07:58AM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2018 Apr 11 (Wed) at 23:01:45 +0200 (+0200), Klemens Nanni wrote: > :On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:28:03AM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: > :> No, all of these uses are correct as-is. > :`tableid' surely isn't wrong, but using the argument name across manuals > :seems nicer to me. > : > > No, they are different things. Different names help with the concept. > > > :Or is there any real difference between `tableid' and `rtable' I'm not > :aware of? > : > > rtables are layer 3. > > rdomains are layer 2 (aka, arp and ndp lookups). > > You can have multiple rtables within an rdomain. An interface can only > be a member of a single rdomain at a time. Maybe my first mail wasn't clear enough: I'm talking about routing *tables* only.
Specifically, how they are referred to as `rtable' and `tableid' across different manual pages. I propose to use `rtable' exclusively to ease searching and improve consistency as that's the wording already used across the majority of manuals including rtabe(4) and pf.conf(5) for example.