e and retransmits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SM is bridged and has an RFC1918 IP. Test would have to be run on-net.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just tried a few pin
gt;>>>>
>>>>> I just tried a few ping tests from the (Cisco) tower router. 100 pings
>>>>> typically comes back around 4/10/35 for min/avg/max. I ran 1000 pings
>>>>> though and got 4/11/48, ran another 1000 and got 4/12/248. Zero packet
PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>>> SM is bridged and has an RFC1918 IP. Test would have to be run on-net.
>>>>
>>>> I just tried a few ping tests from the (Cisco) tower router. 100 pings
>>>> typically comes back around 4/10/35 for min/avg/
comes back around 4/10/35 for min/avg/max. I ran 1000 pings
>>> though and got 4/11/48, ran another 1000 and got 4/12/248. Zero packet
>>> loss, but apparently noise can cause an occasional latency spike, probably
>>> due to upstream.
>>>
>>>
>>>
; *From:* Eric Kuhnke
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:15 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-)
>>
>> Any chance of running 'mtr' against the CPE IP of house #2 and leaving it
>> for a few hou
e an occasional latency spike, probably
> due to upstream.
>
>
> *From:* Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:15 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-)
>
> Any chance of running 'mtr' against t
, but
apparently noise can cause an occasional latency spike, probably due to
upstream.
From: Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-)
Any chance of running 'mtr' against the CPE IP of ho
Any chance of running 'mtr' against the CPE IP of house #2 and leaving it
for a few hours? I'm curious what the min/max/average latency looks like.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to
> get better results.
That is really nice compared to what the other option is for many 900
MHz-viable-only customers: consumer grade VSAT...
I would much rather offer somebody a 2 Mbps downstream x 1 Mbps upstream
connection that has consistent latency of 5 to 25ms to its gateway, and <1%
packet loss, than the satelli
I'd probably buy that.
bp
On 12/18/2015 9:23 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able
to get better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I
wanted to update the grim picture I painted the other day.
As initially set up, I was
Very nice!
- Original Message -
From: Ken Hohhof
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 11:23 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-)
So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to get
better results. I&#x
That tracks nicely with what I've been told, which is a minimum of 3X over FSK,
and up to 7X.
Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> So yesterday I did some tweaking
So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to get
better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I wanted to
update the grim picture I painted the other day.
As initially set up, I was only getting 1X MIMO-A, even on a 5 MHz channel
and after trying a bun
13 matches
Mail list logo
