nanog mailing list archives
Re: MX204 tunnel services BW
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 03:59:46 -0700
On Oct 2, 2023, at 20:18, behrnsjeff () yahoo com wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Delong.com <owen () delong com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:47 PM To: behrnsjeff () yahoo com Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: MX204 tunnel services BW“Tunnel gets whatever bandwidth is left after physical port packets are processed” and likely some additional overhead for managing the sharing.Could that be what’s happening to you?Aggregate throughput for the box was less than 100Gbps while the tunnel was being starved.
Yeah, doesn’t quite work that way… The tunnel is assigned to one particular PFE. What was the aggregate throughput on that PFE (which spending on the card may well top out at 40Gbps or even 10Gbps, though not likely on most Trio-based cards, that’s more of the DPC era cards, which did require you to sacrifice a port for tunnel bandwidth). Owen
Current thread:
- MX204 tunnel services BW Jeff Behrns via NANOG (Oct 02)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Delong.com via NANOG (Oct 02)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Tom Beecher (Oct 03)
- RE: MX204 tunnel services BW Jeff Behrns via NANOG (Oct 03)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Owen DeLong via NANOG (Oct 03)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Saku Ytti (Oct 02)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Owen DeLong via NANOG (Oct 03)
- RE: MX204 tunnel services BW Jeff Behrns via NANOG (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Delong.com via NANOG (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Saku Ytti (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Ryan Kozak (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Mark Tinka (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Mark Tinka (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Saku Ytti (Oct 16)
- Re: MX204 tunnel services BW Delong.com via NANOG (Oct 02)