nanog mailing list archives
RE: MX204 tunnel services BW
From: Jeff Behrns via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 22:18:43 -0500
-----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.
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)