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
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
>