IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3

"Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> Fri, 20 September 2002 17:42 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01710 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 31E1B912B2; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 05737912B3; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79F6912B2 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D672C5E2A0; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.68.6]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557BC5E151 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18396; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02061; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:44:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S8R7DCMH>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:43:56 -0400
Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55BC2E9D@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@nexthop.com>, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:43:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Jeff:
 I knew that, I should have not used the word FIB. Again this is something
that is also implementation specific, thus your point may or may not be
totally correct. But you know what I meant. 

Anyway, I still wonder whether my correction to the text is technically
correct
or off base on what we are trying to say?

Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@nexthop.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:41 PM
> To: Abarbanel, Benjamin
> Cc: idr@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Proxy: comments on section 9.1.3
> 
> 
> Ben,
> 
> To be picky:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 12:27:38PM -0400, Abarbanel, Benjamin wrote:
> > My only point is if a BGP route is added to the FIB 
> (Routing Table), it does
> 
> The FIB is distinct from the Routing Table.  The Routing Table is
> used to populate one or more FIBs.
> 
> (And, if you have implementations with multiple routing instances,
> VRFs, etc, then you may have multiple Routing Tables that
> control or share access to one or more FIBs. :-)
> 
> > Ben
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Haas 
> NextHop Technologies
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status