> On Oct 2, 2023, at 20:18, behrnsj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Delong.com <o...@delong.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:47 PM
> To: behrnsj...@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
