Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2021/02/20 09:20, Remi Locherer wrote: > > On February 19, 2021 8:56:31 PM UTC, Stuart Henderson > > <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > >Canvassing opinions on having . and ! this way around. I'm using . for > > >response, ! for no response, which makes more sense to me but it's been > > >pointed out that it's the opposite of what cisco does so it might > > >confuse > > >some people. > > > > Also Junos uses "!" for sucessfull pings and "." for no response. > > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB25251 > > > > And if I remember it corectly then Brocade did it the same way as Cisco. > > > > The "-g" flag is used differently in various ping implementations. From man > > pages: > > * FreeBSD: - g is sweepmi size. > > * NetBSD: -g is used to specify a gateway for loose source routing. > > * Illumos: same as NetBSD > > * Linux: no -g > > > > > > I like the feature and think -g is fine. I would prefer if our ping would > > use "!" in the same way as Cisco. That is probably als consistent with -f > > where a "." also stands for a echo request. > > That's a good point about -f. I was thinking . is similar to how > it looks in -f output, but really the "."s build up when there are no > replies and it prints a backspace for a received response. > I've had offlist replies in favour of both directions but let's > go with the same polarity as junos/cisco.
I don't think of if like -f. It is different, and as long as it explains itself, and speaks to what people are used to, then it is good.
