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.

Reply via email to