David Bar-On

It seems that the problem in is that the server "received" the client's close of the control channel, before the "done" message (`IPERF_DONE`) sent by the client arrived to the...

Hi @Ankita13-code, I now see that PR #1765 is probably not relevant, as it handles failure at the end of the test, while it seems that the problem is while...

Hi, the first logs you sent show that the server and client are running using some "lisa" tool/script. However, it seems that these two "missing" clients were not running through...

Hi @Ankita13-code, > I'll try to run these with the debug parameter as suggested. That should be helpful. Note that the debug messages adds some overhead which reduces performance/throughput and...

> I also see no evidence of the cookie being sent in any of these packets. I believe you are right that the cookie is send on stream creation only...

@berkakinci I think this is a good idea, so I have implemented your changes in a private iperf3 branch I maintain. I have some comments/suggestions: 1. Regarding your question about...

> We considered it vital identifying info assuming you took the time to set --title. So in our use case, it's about as important as the IP address of the...

This is probably a question that @bmah888 can give the real answer, but from my experience it is better to keep these two issues separate, as they are not directly...

Submitter PR #1790 that supports a UDP data streams port number that is different than the TCP control port number.

> I am very interested in this capability and would like to help with testing. Where can I get the branch? You can get and build the PR #1790 branch...