Christian Ehrhardt

Hi @lantz I wonder if that is indeed it, I've just ignored all of mininet and issued iperf runs against three versions. The old 2.0.13 (working) the new 2.0.14a (failing)...

Since you hinted at `mn -v debug --test iperf` I was having a look at that. I see those two calls: ``` iperf -p 5001 -t 5 -c 10.0.0.2 iperf...

The "extra line" comes from `waitListening` as you said, so that my manual runs all are the same is ok. Let us go down this initial connection a bit ......

The pre-check for the routing via `telnet` still works fine as-is. A alternative could be to parse only client and mostly ignore the server output? But ok, so far you...

FYI this issue still remains in upcoming Ubuntu 21.10 ([test result](https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-impish/impish/amd64/o/openvswitch/20210708_012227_b7f58@/log.gz)) where it tries to run with the newer `iperf 2.1.2`. I'll try to apply the suggestion I have made...

I was testing the fix that I suggested [two comments above](https://github.com/mininet/mininet/issues/1060#issuecomment-809153165) and for the Ubuntu tests based on mininet that works fine, creates valid results and removed the behavior to...

This is helpful indeed, we try to include everyone. The question is what is the right compromise to not write it out in detail many times, but at the same...

I just wanted to state that (for obvious reasons) this affects Ubuntu just as much. After reading the discussion so far I wanted to ask - as it seems armhf...

Highlighting @lechsandecki as well as @orndorffgrant / @renanrodrigo / @lucasmoura for awareness.

I'm not sure if the rendering of this might actually be a task of contract server, also highlighting @alnvdl just to be sure