As per Relevance of the word standard, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group R.
Request for Comments: 1264
October 1991
Internet Engineering Task
Internet Routing Protocol Standardization
Status of this
This informational RFC presents procedures for creating
documenting Internet standards on routing protocols.
procedures have been established by the Internet Activities
(IAB) in consultation with the Internet Engineering Steering
(IESG). Distribution of this memo is unlimited
1.0
The IAB and the IESG have evolved a three-stage
standardization process. This process is explained in the "
Official Protocol Standards", published as an RFC several times
year (the current version is RFC 1250).
In brief, the three stages of Internet standardization are
(which requires a well written, openly reviewed specification),
(which requires Proposed status, multiple implementations and
operational experience), and full Internet Standard (which
Draft status and more extensive operational experience). The IAB
IESG are currently developing a more detailed explanation of
process, which will be available as an RFC
The purpose of this document is to provide more specific guidance
the advancement of routing protocols. All levels of
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
the terms IGP and EGP
2.0
The motivation for these requirements two-fold. The first is
reduce the risk that there will be serious technical problems with
routing protocol after it reaches Draft Standard. The second is
insure that the new routing protocol will support the
growth of the Internet
Hinden [Page 1]
RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991
Routing protocols are complex, widely distributed, real-
algorithms. They are difficult to implement and to test.
though a protocol may work in one environment with
implementation, that does not ensure that it will work in a
environment with multiple vendors. A routing protocol may work
within a range of topologies and number of networks and routers,
may fail when an unforeseen limit is reached. The result is
even with considerable operational experience, it is hard
guarantee that the protocol is mature enough for
deployment
The Internet is currently growing at an exponential rate.
protocols and the management of internet addressing are key
in the successful operation the Internet. It is important that
routing protocols be designed to support this rapid growth
3.0 General
1) Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage. This may
one or more documents. The specifications for the
protocol must be well written such that independent
interoperable implementations can be developed solely based
the specification. For example, it should be possible
develop an interoperable implementation without consulting
original developers of the routing protocol
2) A Management Information Base (MIB) must be written for
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.
security architecture must include mechanisms for
routing messages and may include other forms of protection
4) Generally, a number of interoperable implementations
exist. At least two must be written independently
5) There must be evidence that all features of the protocol
been tested, running between at least two implementations.
must include that all of the security features have
demonstrated to operate, and that the mechanisms defined in
protocol actually provide the intended protection
6) There must be operational experience with the
protocol. The level of operational experience required
dependent on which level of standardization is requested.
significant features of the protocol must be exercised. In
case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), both interior
Hinden [Page 2]
RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991
exterior routes must be carried (unless another mechanism
provided for the exterior routes). In the case of a
Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the full complement
exterior routes
7) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing
Director. The first report must document how requirements 1)
through 6) of this document have been satisfied. It
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
protocols have been tested
- Description of operational experience. This must
topology, environment, time and duration,
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from
operational experience
The second report must summarize the key features of the protocol
analyze how the protocol will perform and scale in the Internet.
intent of this requirement is to understand the boundary
of the routing protocol. The new routing protocol must be
with the existing routing protocols (e.g., RIP, EGP, etc.)
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
does the protocol consume under normal conditions
- For these metrics, how does the usage scale as the
environment grows? This should include topologies at least
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
is it not suitable
Hinden [Page 3]
RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for
of the new routing protocol based on its evaluation of
specifications and these reports
4.0 Requirements for Proposed
1) Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage.
specification for the routing protocol must be well written
that independent, interoperable implementations can be
solely based on the specification. For example, it should
possible to develop an interoperable implementation
consulting the original developers of the routing protocol
2) A Management Information Base (MIB) must be written for
protocol. The MIB does not need to submitted for
Standard at the same time as the routing protocol, but must
at least an Internet Draft
3) The security architecture of the protocol must be set
explicitly. The security architecture must include mechanisms
authenticating routing messages and may include other forms
protection
4) One or more implementations must exist
5) There must be evidence that the major features of the
have been tested
6) No operational experience is required for the routing
at this stage in the standardization process
7) A report must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing
Director. The report must document the key features of
protocol and describe how requirements 1) through 5) have
satisfied. It must include
- What are the key features and algorithms of the protocol
- For what environments is the protocol well suited, and for
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
of the protocols have been tested
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for
of the new routing protocol to Proposed Standard based on
evaluation of protocol specifications and this reports
5.0 Requirements for Draft
1) Revisions to the Protocol and Usage documents showing changes
clarifications made based on experience gained in the
between when the protocol was made a Proposed Standard and
being submitted for Draft Standard. The revised documents
include a section summarizing the changes made
2) The Management Information Base (MIB) must be at the
Standard level of standardization
3) Two or more interoperable implementations must exist. At
two must be written independently
4) There must be evidence that all features of the protocol
been tested, running between at least two implementations.
must include that all of the security features have
demonstrated to operate, and that the mechanisms defined in
protocol actually provide the intended protection
5) There must be significant operational experience. This
include running in a moderate number routers configured in
moderately complex topology, and must be part of the
Internet. All significant features of the protocol must
exercised. In the case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
both interior and exterior routes must be carried (unless
mechanism is provided for the exterior routes). In the case
a Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the
complement of exterior routes
6) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing
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
protocols have been tested
- Description of operational experience. This must
topology, environment, time and duration,
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from
operational experience
The second report must summarize the key features of the protocol
analyze how the protocol will perform and scale in the Internet.
intent of this requirement is to understand the boundary
of the routing protocol. The new routing protocol must be
with the existing routing protocols (e.g., RIP, EGP, etc.)
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
does the protocol consume under normal conditions
- For these metrics, how does the usage scale as the
environment grows? This should include topologies at least
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
is it not suitable
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for
of the new routing protocol to Draft Standard based on its
of protocol specifications and these reports
6.0 Requirements for
1) Revisions to the Protocol and Usage documents showing changes
clarifications made based on experience gained in the time
when the protocol was made a Draft Standard and it being
for Standard. The changes should be to clarify the
or provide guidance in its implementation. No significant
can be made to the protocol at this stage. The revised
should include a section summarizing the changes made
2) The Management Information Base (MIB) must be submitted
Standard at the same time as the routing protocol
3) Three or more interoperable implementations must exist. At
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
tested, running between at least two independently
implementations. This must include that all of the
features have been demonstrated to operate, and that the
defined in the protocol actually provide the intended protection
5) There must be significant operational experience. This
include running in a large number routers configured in a
topology, and must be part of the operational Internet.
operational experience must include multi-vendor operation.
significant features of the protocol must be exercised. In
case of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), both interior
exterior routes must be carried (unless another mechanism
provided for the exterior routes). In the case of a
Gateway Protocol (EGP), it must carry the full complement
exterior routes
6) Two reports must be submitted to the IESG via the Routing
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
protocols have been tested
- Description of operational experience. This must
topology, environment, time and duration,
involved, and overall results and conclusions gained from
operational experience
The second report should be a revision to the report prepared
the protocol was submitted for Draft Standard. It must describe
additional knowledge and understanding gained in the time
when the protocol was made a Draft standard and when it was
for Standard
The IESG will forward to the IAB its recommendation for
of the new routing protocol to Standard based on its evaluation
protocol specifications and these reports
Hinden [Page 7]
RFC 1264 Routing Protocol Criteria October 1991
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
Robert M.
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc
50 Moulton
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 873-3757
EMail: hinden@bbn.
Hinden [Page 8]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
