On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 02:38:07PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote: > 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. Ping.
Further feedback? Objections? OK?
