Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: BGP and memory size
From: Robert Craig <rcraig () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:07:58 -0500

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


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. :-)


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 Nussbacher
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]