BGP and memory size

Thu Jan 2 16:07:58 UTC 1997

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.
> > >
> > > Hank
> >
> 
> Hank Nussbacher