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.