@johnpoz I offered to test an evaluation model ahead of time -- they wouldn't do that either. And somewhat tongue in cheek, if a company is charging a fee more than Cisco, that's a sure sign it's really exorbitant. Bottom line -- it is not reasonable of a company to expect a consumer to take a $200+ risk that their performance metric claims are legitimate. It is reasonable to expect proof / substantiation that the equipment and not the environment is the problem, and I am willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy them in that regard.
@flyzipper Your point is well taken, but in my case, I do consistently get speeds I cited directly through the modem. But if push came to shove, I would certainly be willing to put a another device on another port of the 6100 and do strictly local iperf3 tests through the 6100 to prove the point. Netgate wasn't interested in that either. I really think their position is untenable.
