On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:49, wrote:
> JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
> Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the
> 204. I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what
> they have told
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 00:28, Delong.com wrote:
> The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and looks
> from the literature like it is based on pre-trio chipset technology.
> Interesting that there are 100Gbe interfaces implemented with this seemingly
> older
On 10/17/23 03:20, Ryan Kozak wrote:
"The MX204 router supports two inline tunnels - one per PIC. To
configure the tunnel interfaces, include the tunnel-services statement
and an optional bandwidth of 1 Gbps through 200 Gbps at the \[edit
chassis fpc fpc-slot pic number\] hierarchy
On 10/16/23 21:49, Jeff Behrns via NANOG wrote:
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
This is true of other MX platforms as well, unless I misunderstand.
Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
According to:
Looks like the MX204 Is a bit of an odd duck in the MX series. It probably
shares some hardware characteristics under the hood (even the MX80 (mostly,
there was a variant that had pre-installed interfaces) had MIC slots).
The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and
JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what they
have told me. I advised JTAC to update the MX204
-Original Message-
From: 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 ov
>
> 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,
You can configure tunnel bandwidth everywhere, but you can’t configure
a given tunnel everywhere, you have to assign it to a particular FPC/PIC/0.
For example, with:
set chassis fps 2 pic 3 tunnel-services bandwidth 10g
You need to create gr-2/3/0 interfaces for tunnels to use that PFE.
You can
> On Oct 2, 2023, at 20:18, behrnsj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Delong.com
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:47 PM
> To: behrnsj...@yahoo.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: MX204 tunnel services BW
>
>> “Tunne
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 20:21, Jeff Behrns via NANOG 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
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,
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
