search

ikshwak / iperf

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/iperf
Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Tunnel packet support #98

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Explaination of new feature
Add tunnel packet support, like ipv4 in ipv4, ipv4 in ipv6, ipv6 in ipv4, ipv6 
in ipv6, GRE tunnel

Justification of new feature
This could test the performance of tunnel packets.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcha...@gmail.com on 2 Nov 2013 at 4:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by bltier...@es.net on 8 Nov 2013 at 11:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Can you give some more details here?

It's quite straightforward to set up a tunnel to another host and run iperf3 
over the tunnel using appropriate routing / addressing.  How does that differ 
from what you have in mind?

Original comment by bmah@es.net on 8 Jan 2014 at 10:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I was thinking something similiar to the --parallel option for client. Iperf3 
can simulate upto 128 parallel connection and wanted to see if that can be 
extended to have 128 different tunnels to the server.

Original comment by mcha...@gmail.com on 17 Jan 2014 at 11:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Hrm.  As far as I know it's not possible to have multiple GRE or IP-in-IP 
tunnels between two IP hosts (i.e. a pair of IPv4 addresses).  The use of 
802.1q VLANs might allow you to do it, by creating tunnels between the VLAN 
interfaces, but that adds an extra layer of encapsulation and overhead.  But in 
any case the tunneling details are all separate from iperf3.

I admit I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to test, but it feels to me that 
this could be best done with multiple clients and servers.

Marking this as WontFix, at least for now.

Original comment by bmah@es.net on 3 Feb 2014 at 10:31