Network Working Group                                     S. Varada, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5172                                    Transwitch
Obsoletes: 2472                                               March 2008
Category: Standards Track


Negotiation for IPv6 Datagram Compression Using IPv6 Control Protocol

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

  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method of
  encapsulating network-layer protocol information over point-to-point
  links.  PPP also defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and
  proposes a family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for
  establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols.

  The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPV6CP), which is an NCP for a PPP link,
  allows for the negotiation of desirable parameters for an IPv6
  interface over PPP.

  This document defines the IPv6 datagram compression option that can
  be negotiated by a node on the link through the IPV6CP.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
     1.1. Specification of Requirements ..............................2
  2. IPV6CP Configuration Options ....................................3
     2.1. IPv6-Compression-Protocol ..................................3
  3. Security Considerations .........................................4
  4. IANA Considerations .............................................5
  5. Management Considerations .......................................5
  6. Acknowledgments .................................................5
  7. References ......................................................5
     7.1. Normative References .......................................5
     7.2. Informative References .....................................6







Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


1.  Introduction

  PPP [1] has three main components:

     1) A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links.

     2) A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
        and testing the data-link connection.

     3) A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing
        and configuring different network-layer protocols.

  In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
  end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
  the data link.  After the link has been established and optional
  facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send
  NCP packets to choose and configure one or more network-layer
  protocols.  Once each of the chosen network-layer protocols has been
  configured, datagrams from each network-layer protocol can be sent
  over the link.  The link will remain configured for communications
  until explicit LCP or NCP packets close the link down, or until some
  external event occurs (power failure at the other end, carrier drop,
  etc.).

  In the IPv6 over PPP specification [2], the NCP, or IPV6CP, for
  establishing and configuring IPv6 over PPP is defined.  The same
  specification defines the Interface Identifier parameter, which can
  be used to generate link-local and globally unique IPv6 addresses,
  for negotiation.

  In this specification, the compression parameter for use in IPv6
  datagram compression is defined.  Together with RFC 5072 [2], this
  document obsoletes RFC 2472 [13].  However, no protocol changes have
  been introduced over RFC 2472.

1.1.  Specification of Requirements

  In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
  of the specification.

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in [3].








Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


2.  IPV6CP Configuration Options

  IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6
  parameters.  IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format as
  defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options.  If a
  Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request packet,
  the default value for that Configuration Option is assumed.

  The only IPV6CP option defined in this document is the IPv6-
  Compression-Protocol.  The Type field for this IPV6CP Option is as
  follows:

           2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol

  Note that the up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field are
  specified in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers" maintained by
  IANA [7].

2.1.  IPv6-Compression-Protocol

  This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a
  specific IPv6 packet compression protocol.  The IPv6-Compression-
  Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate the ability to
  receive compressed packets.  Each end of the link MUST separately
  request this option if bidirectional compression is desired.  By
  default, compression is not enabled.

  IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6
  datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting from a
  compression method negotiated via the PPP Compression Control
  Protocol (CCP) [12], which potentially affects all datagrams.

  A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option
  format is shown below.  The fields are transmitted from left to
  right.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |    Length     |   IPv6-Compression-Protocol   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Data ...
  +-+-+-+-+

       Type

         2




Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


       Length

         >= 4

       IPv6-Compression-Protocol

         The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and
         indicates the compression protocol desired.  Values for this
         field are always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol
         field values for that same compression protocol.

         IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values have been assigned in
         [4, 5] for IP Header Compression (0061), and in [6] for Robust
         Header Compression (ROHC) (0003).  Other assignments can be
         made in documents that define specific compression algorithms.

       Data

         The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional
         data as determined by the particular compression protocol.

  The default (in the absence of negotiation of this option) is to have
  no IPv6 compression protocol enabled.

3.  Security Considerations

  Lack of proper link security, such as authentication, prior to data
  transfers may enable man-in-the middle attacks resulting in the loss
  of data integrity and confidentiality.  The mechanisms that are
  appropriate for ensuring PPP link security are addressed below
  together with the reference to a generic threat model.

  The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link security
  are: 1) Access Control Lists that apply filters on traffic received
  over the link for enforcing admission policy, 2) an authentication
  protocol that facilitates negotiations between peers [8] to select an
  authentication method (e.g., MD5 [9]) for validation of the peer, and
  3) an encryption control protocol that facilitates negotiations
  between peers to select encryption algorithms (or crypto-suites) to
  ensure data confidentiality [10]).

  There are certain threats associated with peer interactions on a PPP
  link even with one or more of the above security measures in place.
  For instance, using the MD5 authentication method [9] exposes one to
  replay attacks, in which an attacker could intercept and replay a
  station's identity and password hash to get access to a network.  The
  user of this specification is advised to refer to [8], which presents
  a generic threat model, for an understanding of the threats posed to



Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


  the security of a link.  The reference [8] also gives a framework to
  specify requirements for the selection of an authentication method
  for a given application.

4.  IANA Considerations

  No specific action is needed for the assignment of a value for the
  Type field of IPv6 datagram compression option specified in this
  specification.  The current assignment is up-to-date in the registry
  "PPP IPV6CP CONFIGURATION OPTIONS" for item IPv6-Compression-Protocol
  (2) at [7].  However, the RFC reference for that item has been
  changed to 5172.

  No action is needed either for the assignment of the IPV6-
  Compression-Protocol values, as such values have already been defined
  by other documents listed in Section 2.1.  Values for this field are
  always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field values for
  that same compression protocol.  As a result, future allocation of
  these values is governed by RFC 3818 [11] that requires IETF
  Consensus.  Current values are in the registry "IPv6-Compression-
  Protocol Types".  However, the RFC reference for that registry has
  been changed to 5172.

5.  Management Considerations

  From an operational point of view, the status of the negotiation and
  the compression algorithm on the link should be observable by an
  operator managing a network.  There is no standard management
  interface that covers this at the time of the writing of this
  specification.

6.  Acknowledgments

  The editor is grateful to Jari Arkko for the direction provided on
  this document and James Carlson for helpful suggestions.
  Acknowledgments are also due to D. Haskin and E. Allen for the
  specification work done in RFC 2023 and RFC 2472.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

  [2]  Varada, S., Ed., Haskin, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
       PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.




Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


  [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

  [5]  Koren, T., Casner, S., and C. Bormann, "IP Header Compression
       over PPP", RFC 3544, July 2003.

  [6]  Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", RFC
       3241, April 2002.

7.2.  Informative References

  [7]  IANA, http://www.iana.org.

  [8]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
       Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC
       3748, June 2004.

  [9]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
       1992.

  [10] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)", RFC
       1968, June 1996.

  [11] Schryver, V., "IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point
       Protocol (PPP)", BCP 88, RFC 3818, June 2004.

  [12] Rand, D., "The PPP Compression Control Protocol(CCP)", RFC 1962,
       June 1996.

  [13] Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472,
       December 1998.

Editor's Address

  Srihari Varada
  TranSwitch Corporation
  3 Enterprise Dr.
  Shelton, CT 06484
  US

  Phone: +1 203 929 8810
  EMail: [email protected]






Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5172               IPv6 Datagram Compression              March 2008


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

  This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
  contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
  retain all their rights.

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
  OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
  THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
  made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
  on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
  found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
  such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
  http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
  [email protected].












Varada                      Standards Track                     [Page 7]