On Friday 14 December 2007 00:01:32 Julian Elischer wrote: > > I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id', > > 'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days. > > inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix > to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the tableid name used in > openBSD for compat reasons, and its succinct. > > however in the user visible portion I'm still lookig for a name for > the utility.. (similar to nice, jail, chroot) > > looking for something that flows off the fingers nicely.. > > fib 1 ping 1.1.1.1 > > might work for me > # > # fib 1 sysctl net.my_fib > 1 > # > # > > > since I've never heard of it before I don't know how standard FIB is? > > setfib 1 (mumble) > > I think the contenders are: > > > Base short version utility name > ================================================================== > instance (ala Juniper) inst? rtinst rtinst > vrf (ala cisco) vrf, setvrf > fib ala someone else fib, setfib
I think with vrf / instance (Cisco / Juniper) concepts it is assumed that local interface addressing in each vrf is completely independent, whereas in your framework each local interface, regardles to which rt_table instance it belongs, must have a unique local IP address. So you have my vote against (mis)using the terms vrf, instance, and perhaps even against fib. table / rtable / rttable / tableid etc. sound like much better bikeshed colors to me... Marko > and a late contender: > > routes 1 ping 1.1.1.1 > (note plural) _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
