1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
|
<pre>Network Working Group R. Hinden
Request for Comments: 1264 BBN
October 1991
<span class="h1">Internet Engineering Task Force</span>
<span class="h1">Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria</span>
Status of this Memo
This informational RFC presents procedures for creating and
documenting Internet standards on routing protocols. These
procedures have been established by the Internet Activities Board
(IAB) in consultation with the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG). Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.0" href="#section-1.0">1.0</a> Introduction</span>
The IAB and the IESG have evolved a three-stage Internet
standardization process. This process is explained in the "IAB
Official Protocol Standards", published as an RFC several times a
year (the current version is <a href="./rfc1250">RFC 1250</a>).
In brief, the three stages of Internet standardization are Proposed
(which requires a well written, openly reviewed specification), Draft
(which requires Proposed status, multiple implementations and some
operational experience), and full Internet Standard (which requires
Draft status and more extensive operational experience). The IAB and
IESG are currently developing a more detailed explanation of the
process, which will be available as an RFC.
The purpose of this document is to provide more specific guidance for
the advancement of routing protocols. All levels of the
standardization process are covered.
There are currently two types of routing protocol in the Internet.
These are Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) sometimes called Intra-
Domain Routing Protocols and Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGP)
sometimes called Inter-Domain Routing Protocols. This document uses
the terms IGP and EGP.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.0" href="#section-2.0">2.0</a> Motivation</span>
The motivation for these requirements two-fold. The first is to
reduce the risk that there will be serious technical problems with a
routing protocol after it reaches Draft Standard. The second is to
insure that the new routing protocol will support the continued
growth of the Internet.
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
Routing protocols are complex, widely distributed, real-time
algorithms. They are difficult to implement and to test. Even
though a protocol may work in one environment with one
implementation, that does not ensure that it will work in a different
environment with multiple vendors. A routing protocol may work well
within a range of topologies and number of networks and routers, but
may fail when an unforeseen limit is reached. The result is that
even with considerable operational experience, it is hard to
guarantee that the protocol is mature enough for widespread
deployment.
The Internet is currently growing at an exponential rate. Routing
protocols and the management of internet addressing are key elements
in the successful operation the Internet. It is important that new
routing protocols be designed to support this rapid growth.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.0" href="#section-3.0">3.0</a> General Requirements</span>
1) Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage. This may be
one or more documents. The specifications for the routing
protocol must be well written such that independent,
interoperable implementations can be developed solely based on
the specification. For example, it should be possible to
develop an interoperable implementation without consulting the
original developers of the routing protocol.
2) A Management Information Base (MIB) must be written for the
protocol. Routing protocols, like all other internet protocols,
need a MIB defined so they can be remotely managed.
3) A security architecture of the protocol must be defined. The
security architecture must include mechanisms for authenticating
routing messages and may include other forms of protection.
4) Generally, a number of interoperable implementations must
exist. At least two must be written independently.
5) There must be evidence that all features of the protocol have
been tested, running between at least two implementations. This
must include that all of the security features have been
demonstrated to operate, and that the mechanisms defined in the
protocol actually provide the intended protection.
6) There must be operational experience with the routing
protocol. The level of operational experience required is
dependent on which level of standardization is requested. All
significant features of the protocol must be exercised. In the
case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), both interior and
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
exterior routes must be carried (unless another mechanism is
provided for the exterior routes). In the case of a Exterior
Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the full complement of
exterior routes.
7) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing Area
Director. The first report must document how requirements 1)
through 6) of this document have been satisfied. It must
include:
- Implementation experience.
- Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
- Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
- List of implementations including origin of code.
- Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the
protocols have been tested.
- Description of operational experience. This must include
topology, environment, time and duration, implementations
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from the
operational experience.
The second report must summarize the key features of the protocol and
analyze how the protocol will perform and scale in the Internet. The
intent of this requirement is to understand the boundary conditions
of the routing protocol. The new routing protocol must be compared
with the existing routing protocols (e.g., RIP, EGP, etc.) as
appropriate. The report should answer several questions:
- What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
- How much link bandwidth, router memory and router CPU cycles
does the protocol consume under normal conditions?
- For these metrics, how does the usage scale as the routing
environment grows? This should include topologies at least an
order of magnitude larger than the current environment.
- What are the limits of the protocol for these metrics? (I.e.,
when will the routing protocol break?)
- For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for what
is it not suitable?
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for advancement
of the new routing protocol based on its evaluation of protocol
specifications and these reports.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.0" href="#section-4.0">4.0</a> Requirements for Proposed Standard</span>
1) Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage. The
specification for the routing protocol must be well written such
that independent, interoperable implementations can be developed
solely based on the specification. For example, it should be
possible to develop an interoperable implementation without
consulting the original developers of the routing protocol.
2) A Management Information Base (MIB) must be written for the
protocol. The MIB does not need to submitted for Proposed
Standard at the same time as the routing protocol, but must be
at least an Internet Draft.
3) The security architecture of the protocol must be set forth
explicitly. The security architecture must include mechanisms for
authenticating routing messages and may include other forms of
protection.
4) One or more implementations must exist.
5) There must be evidence that the major features of the protocol
have been tested.
6) No operational experience is required for the routing protocol
at this stage in the standardization process.
7) A report must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing Area
Director. The report must document the key features of the
protocol and describe how requirements 1) through 5) have been
satisfied. It must include:
- What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
- For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for what
is it not suitable?
- Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
- Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
- Implementation experience.
- List of implementations including origin of code.
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
- Test scenarios and test results showing that the major features
of the protocols have been tested.
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for advancement
of the new routing protocol to Proposed Standard based on its
evaluation of protocol specifications and this reports.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.0" href="#section-5.0">5.0</a> Requirements for Draft Standard</span>
1) Revisions to the Protocol and Usage documents showing changes and
clarifications made based on experience gained in the time
between when the protocol was made a Proposed Standard and it
being submitted for Draft Standard. The revised documents should
include a section summarizing the changes made.
2) The Management Information Base (MIB) must be at the Proposed
Standard level of standardization.
3) Two or more interoperable implementations must exist. At least
two must be written independently.
4) There must be evidence that all features of the protocol have
been tested, running between at least two implementations. This
must include that all of the security features have been
demonstrated to operate, and that the mechanisms defined in the
protocol actually provide the intended protection.
5) There must be significant operational experience. This must
include running in a moderate number routers configured in a
moderately complex topology, and must be part of the operational
Internet. All significant features of the protocol must be
exercised. In the case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
both interior and exterior routes must be carried (unless another
mechanism is provided for the exterior routes). In the case of
a Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the full
complement of exterior routes.
6) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing Area
Director. The first report must document how requirements 1)
through 5) of this document have been satisfied. It must include:
- Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
- Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
- List of implementations including origin of code.
- Implementation experience.
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
- Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the
protocols have been tested.
- Description of operational experience. This must include
topology, environment, time and duration, implementations
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from the
operational experience.
The second report must summarize the key features of the protocol and
analyze how the protocol will perform and scale in the Internet. The
intent of this requirement is to understand the boundary conditions
of the routing protocol. The new routing protocol must be compared
with the existing routing protocols (e.g., RIP, EGP, etc.) as
appropriate. The report should answer several questions:
- What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
- How much link bandwidth, router memory and router CPU cycles
does the protocol consume under normal conditions?
- For these metrics, how does the usage scale as the routing
environment grows? This should include topologies at least an
order of magnitude larger than the current environment.
- What are the limits of the protocol for these metrics? (I.e.,
when will the routing protocol break?)
- For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for what
is it not suitable?
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for advancement
of the new routing protocol to Draft Standard based on its evaluation
of protocol specifications and these reports.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.0" href="#section-6.0">6.0</a> Requirements for Standard</span>
1) Revisions to the Protocol and Usage documents showing changes and
clarifications made based on experience gained in the time between
when the protocol was made a Draft Standard and it being submitted
for Standard. The changes should be to clarify the protocol
or provide guidance in its implementation. No significant changes
can be made to the protocol at this stage. The revised documents
should include a section summarizing the changes made.
2) The Management Information Base (MIB) must be submitted for
Standard at the same time as the routing protocol.
3) Three or more interoperable implementations must exist. At least
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
two must be written independently.
4) There must be evidence that all features of the protocol have been
tested, running between at least two independently written
implementations. This must include that all of the security
features have been demonstrated to operate, and that the mechanisms
defined in the protocol actually provide the intended protection.
5) There must be significant operational experience. This must
include running in a large number routers configured in a complex
topology, and must be part of the operational Internet. The
operational experience must include multi-vendor operation. All
significant features of the protocol must be exercised. In the
case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), both interior and
exterior routes must be carried (unless another mechanism is
provided for the exterior routes). In the case of a Exterior
Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the full complement of
exterior routes.
6) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing Area
Director. The first report must document how requirements 1)
through 5) of this document have been satisfied. It must include:
- Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
- Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
- List of implementations including origin of code.
- Implementation experience.
- Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the
protocols have been tested.
- Description of operational experience. This must include
topology, environment, time and duration, implementations
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from the
operational experience.
The second report should be a revision to the report prepared when
the protocol was submitted for Draft Standard. It must describe the
additional knowledge and understanding gained in the time between
when the protocol was made a Draft standard and when it was submitted
for Standard.
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for advancement
of the new routing protocol to Standard based on its evaluation of
protocol specifications and these reports.
<span class="grey">Hinden [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1264">RFC 1264</a> Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991</span>
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address
Robert M. Hinden
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 873-3757
EMail: hinden@bbn.com
Hinden [Page 8]
</pre>
|
