[haiku-development] Re: RFC: Clean up the route command output?
- From: Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:47:42 +0200 (CEST)
> On June 24, 2013 at 2:29 AM Alexander von Gluck <kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 22:09 +0200, Axel Dörfler wrote:
> > Can we please return to the netmask for IPv4
> I originally changed it to get some consistancy in the route command
> output. Others mentioned in IRC that as advanced users generally
> use the route command, showing CIDR wasn't a big deal vs netmask.
My reasoning would be that IPv6 isn't that common knowledge yet, and people
using the route command may not be able to grasp the output as easily.
> Changing it back to have IPv4 show netmasks and IPv6 show CIDR shouldn't
> be too hard... although it means the output for each protocol won't be
> consistant.
It doesn't look consistent anyway due to the different address layout, so I
don't think it would matter much.
> > and to the term "Gateway"
> > rather than "Next hop"?
> > It's called gateway everywhere, and I don't really see any reason to
> > deviate from this terminology here.
> I originally made this change as linux shows "Next Hop" however I don't
> see that naming anywhere else.. so it really doesn't matter much to
> me :).
Alright, thanks.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
