nanog mailing list archives

Re: Regarding global BGP community values


From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:08:33 +0400 (MSD)


work even when this leak disappeared... I don't blame the
software
designers, they must found the compromise between the stability,
time_to_implement, cost and memory,  but I'd like to highlight that they
really did not concerned
about such _cheap_ thing as memory at all). (let me to put -:) here).

On behalf of {myself, Paul, Ravi, Enke}, I assure you that Cisco's BGP has _always_ been
worried about conserving memory.
BGP - yes, total architecture - not at all. Even very simple ensuranses
_don't allow the process eating already 90% of the memory to eat last 10%_
and _defragment the garbage_ was not realised, and if some (BGP for
example) process became crazy and over-eat something, not one can even
log-in and say _reload_ -:).



Tony




Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)




Current thread: