On 2/17/14, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: > On (2014-02-17 12:24 +0000), Phil Mayers wrote: > >> So nothing has changed except we know about it. For anyone who >> assumed devices could fail at any time, this isn't *that* worrying. >> For anyone who assumed devices would run forever, this should be a >> wake-up call - it was never true, and will likely never be so ;o) > > Should we expect devices to be build so that broken memory is detected and > reported to operator? Or is it OK that broken memory is undetected and > mangles > packets without us being aware?
The impression I got was that the memory doesn't die until the device is power cycled. Is that incorrect? Lee _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
