Subject: Re: netstat -i in /etc/daily
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Alexis Rosen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/24/2000 10:44:51
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 07:42:36PM +0900, email@example.com said:
> >> for IPv6 we already have -v (avoid truncation, with unaligned columns).
> >> i think it okay to reuse it.
> >I don't run IPv6 yet so I have no real opinion on this but I suspect a lot
> >of poeple will dislike reusing a flag.
> It makes much more sense to me to use the same flag, for similar
> functionality on top of different AFs.
Sorry, of course. I misread what you wrote.
> >> we may be able to expand "Network" column to occupy 18 letters,
> >> instead of 13 letters, to avoid IPv4 address/prefix truncation.
> >> we need to remove some of stat items on the righthand side, to do this.
> >Again, doesn't bother me, but some people are likely going to be very
> >unhappy. Actually, maybe it does bother me- sometimes I need those numbers.
> I believe there's no solution that can make everyone happy.
> My proposal is
> - leave the default behavior as is (since some may depend on it)
> - and when -v is supplied, don't truncate columns to certain length.
> (don't merge 3rd and 4th columns, just don't truncate)
> I believe this is good enough, and comes with very little surprise.
> A patch that does my proposal, and the sample output (with -in and
> with -inv) is attached. Try it if you have time.
I will soon.
Since I'm not volunteering to write the code, I have little standing to ask
for more, but I will repeat one last plea for a version that combines address
and netmask with all the other info- perhaps with yet another flag. I think
what we have here is a case of two principles ("do it right" and "least
surprise") are in conflict. Of course, my suggestion may violate a third
principle ("don't try to please everyone")...