Re: MX204 tunnel services BW

["Delong.com via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

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.