Hi, I'd strongly prefer a new port for this and keep the existing one as there are quite a few devices with built-in copies of iperf 2.


On 17 September 2016 3:19:45 p.m. Lawrence Teo <l...@openbsd.org> wrote:

net/iperf is at 2.0.5 and no longer maintained; its website
(http://iperf.sourceforge.net) now directs users to iperf3 instead.

A description of iperf3 is available at the top of their main
non-github site at http://software.es.net/iperf/ -- the summary is that
iperf3 is a rewritten iperf that is not backwards compatible with iperf.
The installed binary name has also changed; it is now "bin/iperf3"
instead of "bin/iperf".

I have attached the new net/iperf3 port for review.

Note: Due to the way iperf3 uses IPV6_V6ONLY
(https://github.com/esnet/iperf/issues/196), iperf3 can only listen
on IPv6 or IPv4 but not both when you start it in server mode.  If you
would like to use it in server mode with IPv4, you will need to run:

    iperf3 -4 -s

Some questions:

1. Is it preferable to introduce a new port or update the existing
   net/iperf port?  I lean towards introducing a new port because of the
   backwards incompatibility, and the situation is similar to
   security/p0f and security/p0f3.

2. If it's preferable to introduce a new port, should the old net/iperf
   port be removed?

Last but not least, thanks to jca@ for prodding me about this. :)

Thoughts and reviews welcome.

Lawrence


Reply via email to