Yes... just write a new date of birth on your ID with a Sharpie... it'll be fine, who's going to bother checking?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > What's that matter? It's not like we care about the constitution any more. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sounds familiar... >> >> That's me invigorating the economy. Mike for President. ;-) Wait, I >> won't be old enough this election. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Erich Kaiser" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:31:50 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput >> >> It could be a laptop issue, one time someone made fun of my laptop so I >> went out and bought an i7 laptop and now I can run speedtests all day long >> with no problem... >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> [email protected] >> Office: 630-621-4804 >> Cell: 630-777-9291 >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Nate Burke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm not doing any MT Queuing, the Only Queue is the EPMP QOS. I put a >>> MT in Bridge mode at one of the customer locations for bandwidth testing >>> after the customer was complaining about slow speeds. The MT BW Test to >>> that Bridge runs as expected. It's reassuring that others are not seeing >>> this. >>> >>> >>> On 7/22/2015 5:43 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> Also, the two tests may be different. Speedtest.net type test may be >>> saying I see packet loss starting at X Mbps so the rate is X, while iPerf >>> type test may say I see Y Mbps goodput despite some packet loss so the rate >>> is Y. >>> >>> This may be interacting with the queuing method, as Mike points out. >>> >>> Perhaps set the ePMP to wide open and see if customer results change, >>> then set queue in Miktrotik and see what happens. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Mike Hammett <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:30 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput >>> >>> I read it as using the ePMP for queuing, the performance is less than >>> expected. Using the MT for queuing, the performance is as expected. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com >>> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Josh Luthman" <[email protected]> >>> <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:57:18 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput >>> >>> If the Mikrotiks at the customer site are doing 40x10 but the customer >>> devices behind the MT it doesn't really make sense to look at the epmp for >>> your problem. >>> >>> It could be the Mikrotik's CPU, port, wireless or the customer device. >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Nate Burke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have deployed quite a bit of epmp, but most people are at my base >>>> package, 4x1 (using the radio qos to limit bw on different tiers). Of the >>>> handful of people that are on larger plans, 20x5 or 40x10, 2 of them, on >>>> different towers are complaining that they struggle to get over 10mb on a >>>> speed test. The radio rf link test performs at the assigned qos level, and >>>> I sent one of them a mikrotik to go between the poe and his router (qos >>>> 40x10), and udp/tcp tests to that are coming back as expected. However, I >>>> can be watching the router, and his interface plugged directly into a >>>> laptop only runs like 10x2 during a speedtest. Do both of these customers >>>> have something wonky with their laptops, or is there a setting in epmp I'm >>>> overlooking? Most of our epmp deployment has been FSK upgrades, so I >>>> haven't had much actual laptop time myself behind an epmp sm, as we just go >>>> on the roof and change radios. >>>> >>>> Nate >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
