[6663] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and memory size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Thu Jan 2 01:30:56 1997
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:58:29 +0200 (IST)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>
To: Robert Craig <rcraig@cisco.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <32CAA0D8.6201DD56@cisco.com>
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
