Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          R. HindenRequest for Comments: 1264                                           BBN                                                            October 1991Internet Engineering Task ForceInternet Routing Protocol Standardization CriteriaStatus 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 isRFC 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 andHinden                                                          [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 leastHinden                                                          [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 1991Security 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.comHinden                                                          [Page 8]