Merge ping+ping6 and traceroue+traceroute6 to single utilities?

[Jim Thompson]

On Jan 12, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Chris H <bsd-lists at 1command.com> wrote:

>>>>> From an operator's point of view: unlike ordinary network applications like
>>> remote login tools, we are usually aware of address family when using network
>>> management tools.  We do not just want to know the reachability to the host,
>>> but want to know the reachability to the host via a particular network protocol
>>> such as IPv6.  Thus, even if we had a unified ping(8) command for both IPv4 and
>>> IPv6, we would usually type a -6 or -4 option (or something like those) to
>>> specify the particular address family.  This essentially means that we have two
>>> different commands.
>> 
>> Disagree. As I showed in my previous message, *only* in the case of a
>> name with both A and AAAA records is this necessary.
>> 
>> I use unified ping and traceroute on JunOS daily. It's a blessing not
>> to have to specify the address family.
> 
> Disagree. In the current, on FreeBSD, in either case, it's less keystrokes.
> How is ping -6 || ping -4 better?
> What's the point?
> How will modifying all the some thousands of scripts everyone currently uses
> based on the current commands, make it better?
> Really. This is a silly argument. Adding switches makes no sense.

While I tend to agree with the query, (that ping6/ping and traceroute6/traceroute could be merged), and
that the ‘old’ behavior can simply be hand via passing in -4 or -6 as a switch, this thread is quickly entering
the domain otherwise known as “bike shedding”.

There *have* to be better things to do.

Jim