GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1264

Network Working Group R. Hinden Request for Comments: 1264 BBN

                                                          October 1991
                  Internet Engineering Task Force
         Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria

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.

1.0 Introduction

 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 RFC 1250).
 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.

2.0 Motivation

 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.

Hinden [Page 1] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

 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.

3.0 General Requirements

 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

Hinden [Page 2] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

    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:
  1. Implementation experience.
  1. Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
  1. Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
  1. List of implementations including origin of code.
  1. Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the

protocols have been tested.

  1. 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:
  1. What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
  1. How much link bandwidth, router memory and router CPU cycles

does the protocol consume under normal conditions?

  1. 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.
  1. What are the limits of the protocol for these metrics? (I.e.,

when will the routing protocol break?)

  1. For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for what

is it not suitable?

Hinden [Page 3] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

 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.

4.0 Requirements for Proposed Standard

 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:
  1. What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
  1. For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for what

is it not suitable?

  1. Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
  1. Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
  1. Implementation experience.
  1. List of implementations including origin of code.

Hinden [Page 4] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

  1. 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.

5.0 Requirements for Draft Standard

 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:
  1. Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
  1. Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
  1. List of implementations including origin of code.
  1. Implementation experience.

Hinden [Page 5] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

  1. Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the

protocols have been tested.

  1. 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:
  1. What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol?
  1. How much link bandwidth, router memory and router CPU cycles

does the protocol consume under normal conditions?

  1. 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.
  1. What are the limits of the protocol for these metrics? (I.e.,

when will the routing protocol break?)

  1. 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.

6.0 Requirements for Standard

 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

Hinden [Page 6] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

    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:
  1. Reference to the MIB for the protocol.
  1. Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.
  1. List of implementations including origin of code.
  1. Implementation experience.
  1. Test scenarios and test results showing that all features of the

protocols have been tested.

  1. 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.

Hinden [Page 7] RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1264.txt · Last modified: 1991/10/25 21:57 (external edit)