Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: > In the old world only netstat could show the routing table. I think this > is still the case in FreeBSD for example. We added route show at some > point but the documentation was not shared between the manpages. > I agree that it is annoying to open up the netstat man page to find the > flags shown by route show. For this we added: > > Print out the routing table, in a fashion similar to > "netstat -r". The output is documented in more detail > towards the end of the netstat(1) manual. > > To the route manpage when describing route show. Not sure if that is > enough or if we should duplicate tables (whith the usual sync problem).
This is all true. So netstat in those days was more of a "kvm reader" program, and as such racy. Nowadays both route & netstat programs's subcommands are a mix of sysctl readers and route socket askers/listeners, and thus they have better atomicity or at least other types of truth. The sub-command extensions in route are better designed, mostly because they are newer and were built in an era where kernels maintained more than a handful of routes. I think we want to lean people towards using route, instead of netstat. So I think route.8 is where we should try to have complete documentation, and once that is done we should change Xr's and other documentation to point at route.8 instead of netstat.8
