On 26 Aug 2019, at 16:31, John Baldwin wrote:
On 8/26/19 1:59 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
In other notes (and I keep saying that), I can see a world when ping
doesn’t exist anymore as IPv4 doesn’t exist anymore (I partially
already live in that world). The fact that people still do not
prepare
themselves for this time is a bit strange to me as by the time
FreeBSD
14 is still in support this IPv6-only world might very well happen
for a
majority of people. And FreeBSD 14-CURRENT really is only a year
away
now. So breaking what’s been good for almost 20 years now for a
few
more years doesn’t really seem to be worth to me.
Eh, I think having 'ping' around on even IPv6 systems is sensible.
ping is not inherently version-specific in name, only ping6 is.
Having
ping not include ipv4 bits for WITHOUT_INET=yes is fine, but I think
not
having ping as a command is just nonsense. The fact that we have
ping6
instead of ping -6 (compared to say, traceroute, ssh, etc. which all
have unified commands) is just a user-interface bug we are stuck
maintaining compatibility for, not a goal to shoot for.
Yes, I think we agreed with that and the wording we are using for the
current (and future) FreeBSD situation just differed.
To rephrase: I think it is a good idea (especially given the startup
script use it) to have a command to send ICMP echo requests for a
supported protocol family.
I also think it would be a good idea to preserve the legacy of ping6(8)
which behaves exactly the same as the current ping6(8) even if the code
is shared with ping(8) and installed as a hardlink or similar.
/bz
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
