Re: MX204 tunnel services BW

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> AIUI, with Trio, you don’t have to disable a physical port, but that comes
> at the cost of “Tunnel gets whatever bandwidth is left after physical port
> packets are processed” and likely some additional overhead for managing the
> sharing.

This was pretty much my understanding as well, last time I dealt with this.
On MPC/Trio , you just enabled tunnel-services on a given PIC, and landed
your tunnel there. The tunnel capacity was just part of the PFE capacity.

Was only on pre-Trio that the bandwidth keyword was required, and that
actually reserved that much capacity strictly for the tunnel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:48 PM Delong.com via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:

> AIUI, with Trio, you don’t have to disable a physical port, but that comes
> at the cost of “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?
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 09:24, Jeff Behrns via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> >
> > Encountered an issue with an MX204 using all 4x100G ports and a logical
> > tunnel to hairpin a VRF.  The tunnel started dropping packets around
> 8Gbps.
> > I bumped up tunnel-services BW from 10G to 100G which made the problem
> > worse; the tunnel was now limited to around 1.3Gbps.  To my knowledge
> with
> > Trio PFE you shouldn't have to disable a physical port to allocate
> bandwidth
> > for tunnel-services.  Any helpful info is appreciated.