From robert@fledge.watson.org  Thu Aug 10 13:35:33 2000
Return-Path: <robert@fledge.watson.org>
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB23037BC63
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: (from robert@localhost)
	by fledge.watson.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28369;
	Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert)
Message-Id: <200008102035.QAA28369@fledge.watson.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: rwatson@freebsd.org
Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
Reply-To: rwatson@freebsd.org
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: ping6 and traceroute6 aren't in ping and traceroute
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2

>Number:         20527
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       redundant binaries for similar IPv4 and IPv6 tools
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    ume
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Aug 10 13:40:00 PDT 2000
>Closed-Date:    Tue Mar 13 04:46:33 PST 2001
>Last-Modified:  Tue Mar 13 04:49:02 PST 2001
>Originator:     Robert Watson
>Release:        FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386
>Organization:
>Environment:

FreeBSD 4.0 or greater, IPv6 tools

>Description:

ping6 and traceroute6 are seperate binaries from ping and traceroute.
For other IPv6 tools (telnet, rsh, ...) the binaries are the same.
This inconsistency is unfortunate, and should (one would imagine) be
correctable, with an optional "-4" or "-6" to force the use of AF_INET
or AF_INET6 to retrieve a particular protocol.  It would be nice to
reduce the number of setuid binaries in the system, as well as,
wherever possible, use the same tools for both IP protocols to minimize
unnecessary differences.

>How-To-Repeat:

ls /usr/sbin/traceroute6 /usr/sbin/traceroute
ls /sbin/ping6 /sbin/ping

>Fix:

Patches not available.


>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->ume 
Responsible-Changed-By: johan 
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Aug 10 13:47:06 PDT 2000 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Let our IPv6 maintainer have a look at this. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=20527 

From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/20527: ping6 and traceroute6 aren't in ping and traceroute 
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:55:58 +0200

 On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:35:24 -0400, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG wrote:
 
 > >Number:         20527
 > >Category:       bin
 > >Synopsis:       redundant binaries for similar IPv4 and IPv6 tools
 
 Hi Robert,
 
 Did someone in particular ask you to send this "wish-list" class PR? :-)
 
 Ciao,
 Sheldon.
 

From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/20527: ping6 and traceroute6 aren't in ping and traceroute 
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:39:20 -0400 (EDT)

 On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
 
 > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:35:24 -0400, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG wrote:
 > 
 > > >Number:         20527
 > > >Category:       bin
 > > >Synopsis:       redundant binaries for similar IPv4 and IPv6 tools
 > 
 > Hi Robert,
 > 
 > Did someone in particular ask you to send this "wish-list" class PR? :-)
 
 Heh. :-)  Actually, I made an off-hand comment in a place with many
 FreeBSD coding types, and the response was, ``yes, you're right, it should
 be'' and related types of things.  One rationale is reducing the number of
 setuid binaries, since in the base OS, setuid root is required for raw
 socket access, another is consistency.  In any case, it would be nice,
 although presumably there are strong rationales for having two binaries in
 the first place, which might be nice to discuss and see if they still hold
 true in the light of support framework improvements, integration into the
 base OS, etc.
 
   Robert N M Watson 
 
 robert@fledge.watson.org              http://www.watson.org/~robert/
 PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37  ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1
 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services
 
 

From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@freebsd.org
Cc: ume@mahoroba.org
Subject: Re: bin/20527: redundant binaries for similar IPv4 and IPv6 tools
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:56:39 +0900 (JST)

 I think there are few merits to merge binaries, and we shouldn't do it
 at least for the present.  The reason are:
 
   - There are few shareable code between ping and ping6, or traceroute
     and traceroute6.  This is because, raw socket related APIs are
     quite different between IPv4 and IPv6.  So, there are few benefit
     to merge these.
 
   - ping6 and traceroute6 are maintained by KAME Project, and we have
     merging issue.  Once we have such merged binaries, merge or
     maintainance will be harder.
 
 --
 Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
 ume@mahoroba.org  ume@bisd.hitachi.co.jp  ume@FreeBSD.org
 http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
 
 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: ume 
State-Changed-When: Tue Mar 13 04:46:33 PST 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  
The author of ping6 added the reason why ping and ping6 are exist 
separately to BUGS section of ping6 manpage. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=20527 
>Unformatted:
