nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP and memory size
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () ibm net il>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:58:29 +0200 (IST)
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. Hank
Hank 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)