[c-nsp] BGP dram confusion

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:46:19AM +0100, Erik Klaassen wrote:
> Why is 
> 
> #sh ip bgp sum:
> BGP using 64542178 total bytes of memory
> 
> But 
> 
> #sh proc mem sorted
> PID TTY  Allocated      Freed    Holding    Getbufs    Retbufs Process
>  496   0  873738484  270014880  507419984          0          0 BGP Router
> 
> And thus the eating all the memory. 

Typically, the CEF tables needed for BGP routes are charged to the BGP
process (in show proc mem), but BGP doesn't know that, so "show ip b su"
doesn't show it.

OTOH if you only have a default route, it should return the memory.

You might have run into one of the BGP "prefixes get stuck in limbo if
a peer that would receive them is down" bug - an upgrade might be worth
wile (if only for the number of security relevant upgrades in the last
few months).

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20150313/1e69d651/attachment.sig>