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)