North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP and memory size
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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|