From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1264.txt') 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 -- cgit v1.2.3