nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP and memory size
From: Robert Craig <rcraig () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:07:58 -0500
Agreed, the release notes should have been updated with the reason the bug was being junked. Robert. Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Robert Craig wrote: In the future to avoid misunderstandings, suggest that closed or junked problems contain a fuller explanation as you stated below.I hope the smiley face was omitted accidentally! The bug report was junked (by the way, we don't junk legitimate bug reports) because the router in question was a 7200 with 32M of memory taking full routing from several peers. It simply didn't haveenough memory. There was no evidence of a memory leak. Needless to say, if there had been a leak, it would have had high priority. The gent who opened the bug report in the first place was "unfamiliar" with the environment. :-) Robert. HankNussbacher wrote:Perhaps Cisco is just trying to force us to buy more memory: ID: 79764 Feature-set: bgp Title: Memory Leak in BGP Router process Reported: 11.1(7) 11.2(2) State: J There appears to be a Memory Leak in BGP Router Process. Notice the State. It is J - which stands for Junked - which means they will not fix this since it isn't viewed as an important problem. HankHank Nussbacher
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- BGP and memory size Hank Nussbacher (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP and memory size Robert Craig (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP and memory size Avi Freedman (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP and memory size Hank Nussbacher (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP and memory size Robert Craig (Jan 02)
- Re: BGP and memory size Ravi Chandra (Jan 04)
- Re: BGP and memory size Robert Craig (Jan 01)