rfc2509 - IP Header Compression over PPP

Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 2509 M. Engan
Category: Standards Track Effnet
S. Casner
Cisco Systems
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
February 1999

IP Header Compression over PPP

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document describes an option for negotiating the use of header
compression on IP datagrams transmitted over the Point-to-Point
Protocol RFC1661">[RFC1661]. It defines extensions to the PPP Control
Protocols for IPv4 and IPv6 RFC1332, RFC2023">[RFC1332, RFC2023]. Header compression
may be applied to IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams in combination with TCP,
UDP and RTP transport protocols as specified in [IPHC] and [CRTP].

1. Introduction

The IP Header Compression (IPHC) defined in [IPHC] may be used for
compression of both IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams or packets encapsulated
with multiple IP headers. IPHC is also capable of compressing both
TCP and UDP transport protocol headers. The IP/UDP/RTP header
compression defined in [CRTP] fits within the framework defined by
IPHC so that it may also be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6 packets.

In order to establish compression of IP datagrams sent over a PPP
link each end of the link must agree on a set of configuration
parameters for the compression. The process of negotiating link
parameters for network layer protocols is handled in PPP by a family
of network control protocols (NCPs). Since there are separate NCPs
for IPv4 and IPv6, this document defines configuration options to be

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

used in both NCPs to negotiate parameters for the compression scheme.

IPHC relies on the link layer's ability to indicate the types of
datagrams carried in the link layer frames. In this document nine new
types for the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol Field are defined along
with their meaning.

In general, header compression schemes that use delta encoding of
compressed packets require that the lower layer does not reorder
packets between compressor and decompressor. IPHC uses delta encoding
of compressed packets for TCP and RTP. The IPHC specification [IPHC]
includes methods that allow link layers that may reorder packets to
be used with IPHC. Since PPP does not reorder packets these
mechanisms are disabled by default. When using reordering mechanisms
such as multiclass multilink PPP [MCML], care must be taken so that
packets that share the same compression context are not reordered.

2. Configuration Option

This document specifies a new compression protocol value for the IPCP
IP-Compression-Protocol option as specified in RFC1332">[RFC1332]. The new
value and the associated option format are described in section 2.1.

The option format is structured to allow future extensions to the
IPHC scheme.

NOTE: The specification of link and network layer parameter
negotiation for PPP RFC1661">[RFC1661], RFC1331">[RFC1331], RFC1332">[RFC1332] does not
prohibit multiple instances of one configuration option but states
that the specification of a configuration option must explicitly
allow multiple instances. From the current specification of the
IPCP IP-Compression-Protocol configuration option RFC1332, p 6">[RFC1332, p 6]
it follows that it can only be used to select a single compression
protocol at any time.

NOTE: RFC1332">[RFC1332] is not explicit about whether the option
negotiates the capabilities of the receiver or of the sender. In
keeping with current practice, we assume that the option describes
the capabilities of the decompressor (receiving side) of the peer
that sends the Config-Req.

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

2.1. Configuration Option Format

Both the network control protocol for IPv4, IPCP RFC1332">[RFC1332] and the
IPv6 NCP, IPV6CP RFC2023">[RFC2023] may be used to negotiate IP Header
Compression parameters for their respective protocols. The format of
the configuration option is the same for both IPCP and IPV6CP.

Description

This NCP configuration option is used to negotiate parameters for
IP Header Compression. The option format is summarized below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.

Type
2

Length
>= 14

The length may be increased if the presence of additional
parameters is indicated by additional suboptions.

IP-Compression-Protocol
0061 (hex)

TCP_SPACE
The TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum value
of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
allocated for TCP.

Suggested value: 15

TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 255 (The value 0 implies
having one context).

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

NON_TCP_SPACE
The NON_TCP_SPACE field is two octets and indicates the maximum
value of a context identifier in the space of context identifiers
allocated for non-TCP. These context identifiers are carried in
COMPRESSED_NON_TCP, COMPRESSED_UDP and COMPRESSED_RTP packet
headers.

Suggested value: 15

NON_TCP_SPACE must be at least 0 and at most 65535 (The value 0
implies having one context).

F_MAX_PERIOD
Maximum interval between full headers. No more than F_MAX_PERIOD
COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers may be sent between FULL_HEADER
headers.

Suggested value: 256

A value of zero implies infinity, i.e. there is no limit to the
number of consecutive COMPRESSED_NON_TCP headers.

F_MAX_TIME
Maximum time interval between full headers. COMPRESSED_NON_TCP
headers may not be sent more than F_MAX_TIME seconds after sending
the last FULL_HEADER header.

Suggested value: 5 seconds

A value of zero implies infinity.

MAX_HEADER
The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.

Suggested value: 168 octets

The value of MAX_HEADER should be large enough so that at least
the outer network layer header can be compressed. To increase
compression efficiency MAX_HEADER should be set to a value large
enough to cover common combinations of network and transport layer
headers.

suboptions
The suboptions field consists of zero or more suboptions. Each
suboption consists of a type field, a length field and zero or
more parameter octets, as defined by the suboption type. The
value of the length field indicates the length of the suboption in
its entirety, including the lengths of the type and length fields.

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Parameters...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.2 RTP-Compression Suboption

The RTP-Compression suboption is included in the NCP
IP-Compression-Protocol option for IPHC if IP/UDP/RTP compression is
to be enabled.

After successful negotiation of parameters for IP Header Compression
the use of Protocol Identifiers FULL_HEADER, COMPRESSED_TCP,
COMPRESSED_TCP_NODELTA and COMPRESSED_NON_TCP is enabled, regardless
of the prescence of an RTP-Compression suboption.

Description

Enable use of Protocol Identifiers COMPRESSED_RTP, COMPRESSED_UDP and
CONTEXT_STATE as specified in [CRTP].

0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type
1

Length
2

3. Multiple Network Control Protocols

The IPHC protocol is able to compress both IPv6 and IPv4 datagrams.
Both IPCP and IPV6CP are able to negotiate option parameter values
for IPHC. These values apply to the compression of packets where the
outer header is an IPv4 header and an IPv6 header, respectively.

3.1. Sharing Context Identifier Space

For the compression and decompression of IPv4 and IPv6 datagram
headers the context identifier space is shared. While the parameter
values are independently negotiated, sharing the context identifier
spaces becomes more complex when the parameter values differ. Since

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

the compressed packets share context identifier space, the
compression engine must allocate context identifiers out of a common
pool; for compressed packets, the decompressor has to examine the
context state to determine what parameters to use for decompression.

Context identifier spaces are not shared between TCP and non-
TCP/UDP/RTP. Doing so would require additional mechanisms to ensure
that no error can occur when switching from using a context
identifier for TCP to non-TCP.

4. Demultiplexing of Datagrams

The IPHC specification [IPHC] defines four header formats for
different types of compressed headers. They are compressed TCP,
compressed TCP with no delta encoding, compressed non-TCP with 8 bit
CID and compressed non-TCP with 16 bit CID. The two non-TCP formats
may be distinguished by their contents so both may use the same
link-level identifier. A fifth header format, the full header is
distinct from a regular header in that it carries additional
information to establish shared context between the compressor and
decompressor.

The specification of IP/UDP/RTP Header Compression [CRTP] defines
four additional formats of compressed headers. They are for
compressed UDP and compressed RTP (on top of UDP), both with either
8- or 16-bit CIDs. In addition, there is an explicit error message
from the decompressor to the compressor.

The link layer must be able to indicate these header formats with
distinct values. Nine PPP Data Link Layer Protocol Field values are
specified below.

FULL_HEADER
The frame contains a full header as specified in [CRTP] Section
3.3.1. This is the same as the FULL_HEADER specified in [IPHC]
Section 5.3.
Value: 0061 (hex)

COMPRESSED_TCP
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [IPHC] Section 6a.
Value: 0063 (hex)

COMPRESSED_TCP_NODELTA
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [IPHC] Section 6b.
Value: 2063 (hex)

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

COMPRESSED_NON_TCP
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in either Section 6c or Section 6d of
[IPHC].
Value: 0065 (hex)

COMPRESSED_RTP_8
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [CRTP] Section 3.3.2, using 8-bit CIDs.
Value: 0069 (hex)

COMPRESSED_RTP_16
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [CRTP] Section 3.3.2, using 16-bit CIDs.
Value: 2069 (hex)

COMPRESSED_UDP_8
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [CRTP] Section 3.3.3, using 8-bit CIDs.
Value: 0067 (hex)

COMPRESSED_UDP_16
The frame contains a datagram with a compressed header with the
format as specified in [CRTP] Section 3.3.3, using 16-bit CIDs.
Value: 2067 (hex)

CONTEXT_STATE
The frame is a link-level message sent from the decompressor to
the compressor as specified in [CRTP] Section 3.3.5.
Value: 2065 (hex)

5. References

[CRTP] Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February
1999.

[IPHC] Degermark, M., Nordgren, B. and S. Pink, "Header
Compression for IP", RFC 2507, February 1999.

RFC2023">[RFC2023] Haskin, E. and E. Allan, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC
2023, October 1996.

RFC1144">[RFC1144] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low- Speed
Serial Links", RFC 1144, February 1990.

RFC1332">[RFC1332] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol
(IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992.

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

RFC1889">[RFC1889] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for real-time
applications", RFC 1889, January 1996.

RFC1661">[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-To-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
51, RFC 1661, July 1994.

[MCML] Bormann, C., "The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link
PPP", Work in Progress.

6. Security Considerations

Negotiation of the option defined here imposes no additional security
considerations beyond those that otherwise apply to PPP RFC1661">[RFC1661].

The use of header compression can, in rare cases, cause the
misdelivery of packets. If necessary, confidentiality of packet
contents should be assured by encryption.

Encryption applied at the IP layer (e.g., using IPSEC mechanisms)
precludes header compression of the encrypted headers, though
compression of the outer IP header and authentication/security
headers is still possible as described in [IPHC]. For RTP packets,
full header compression is possible if the RTP payload is encrypted
by itself without encrypting the UDP or RTP headers, as described in
RFC1889">[RFC1889]. This method is appropriate when the UDP and RTP header
information need not be kept confidential.

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

7. Authors' Addresses

Mathias Engan
Effnet
Aurorum 2
SE-977 75 Lulea, Sweden

Phone: +46 920 75600
Mobile: +46 70 833 8932
Fax: +46 920 75610
EMail: engan@effnet.com

Stephen L. Casner
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
United States

EMail: casner@cisco.com

Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen FB3 TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28334 Bremen, GERMANY

Phone: +49.421.218-7024
Fax: +49.421.218-7000
EMail: cabo@tzi.org

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP February 1999

8. Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Engan, et. al. Standards Track [Page 10]