[6756] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and memory size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ravi Chandra)
Sat Jan 4 05:59:29 1997
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:47:08 -0800
From: Ravi Chandra <rchandra@cisco.com>
To: rcraig@cisco.com
cc: nanog@merit.edu
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
