BGP and memory size

Ravi Chandra rchandra at cisco.com
Sat Jan 4 09:47:08 UTC 1997


In cisco.external.nanog you write:

>Agreed, the release notes should have been updated with the
>reason the bug was being junked.


Better for the junked bugs to not show up.. I am contacting folks to fix it..

--ravi

>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





More information about the NANOG mailing list