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:

     - 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?




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:

     - 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.



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


     - 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:

     - Reference to the MIB for the protocol.

     - Description of the authentication mechanisms in the protocol.

     - List of implementations including origin of code.

     - Implementation experience.



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


     - 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.

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:

     - 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.



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: [email protected]





































Hinden                                                          [Page 8]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.rbfh.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.