Iperf measurenment

[Janusz Dziedzic]

On 12 May 2015 at 14:22, Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have tested IPv6 and I got the same results. :(
>
Does ping6 works correctly eg. ping6 fe80::f6b7:e2ff:fe38:83f3%wlan0 (*)


Server:
iperf -V -s -i 10

Client:
iperf -V -c fe80::f6b7:e2ff:fe38:83f3%wlan0 -t 20 (*)

(*):
fe80::f6b7:e2ff:fe38:83f3 - wlan1 ipv6 addr
%wlan0 - send this packet using wlan0 iface

BR
Janusz
> 2015-05-12 8:24 GMT-03:00 Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Janusz, than you.
>>
>> Is there another option to use network namespace instead of netns? I have
>> defined the network namespace to stations, like the image attached. If I use
>> tcpdump on the ap I can see the packets from one to another station and if
>> they are not connected to ap, it not possible ping between them.
>>
>> -- Sent from my android
>>
>> Em 12/05/2015 02:31, "Janusz Dziedzic" <janusz.dziedzic at tieto.com>
>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> On 11 May 2015 at 13:45, Ramon Fontes <ramonreisfontes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi Mr Bhave, thank you for your reply. Look at this image
>>> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vobpagbvp4sifn/Screenshot1.png?dl=0. The
>>> > average
>>> > is more than 1Gb, but I am using mode G. What is wrong with my
>>> > topology?
>>> >
>>> You have wlan1/wlan2 on the same PC - same IPv4 class. Traffic
>>> wlan1<->wlan2 never goes via AP (air) while IP stack is smart enough
>>> and send them directly between interfaces.
>>> You can use ipv6 scope link instead of ipv4 addresses (iperf -V
>>> option) or use network namespaces.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Janusz
>
>