1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..14336fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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: hinden@bbn.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Hinden                                                          [Page 8]
+
+\ No newline at end of file