Mailing List Archive

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 have enough 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.

Hank Nussbacher 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -