> > 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. > >
