💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc1663.gmi captured on 2022-04-28 at 23:08:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: [PPP-TRANS|p], Point, Protocol
Network Working Group D. Rand
Request for Comments: 1663 Novell
Category: Standards Track July 1994
PPP Reliable Transmission
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) [1] provides a standard method for
transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.
This document defines a method for negotiating and using Numbered-
Mode, as defined by ISO 7776 [2], to provide a reliable serial link.
This document is the product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working
Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should
be submitted to the ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu mailing list.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 1
2. Physical Layer Requirements ........................... 2
3. The Data Link Layer ................................... 2
3.1 Frame Format ....................................... 2
4. Configuration Option Format ........................... 4
5. Numbered-Mode Operation ............................... 5
5.1 Single Link ........................................ 6
5.2 Inverse Multiplexing ............................... 6
5.3 Using Multi-Link Procedure... ...................... 7
5.4 LAPB Parameter defaults ............................ 8
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 9
REFERENCES ................................................... 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 9
CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 10
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 10
Rand [Page 1]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
1. Introduction
By default, PPP packets over HDLC framed links consist of
"connectionless" datagrams. If reliable transmission over the HDLC
link is desired, the implementation MUST specify the Numbered-Mode
Configuration Option during Link Establishment phase.
Generally, serial link reliability is not a major issue. The
architecture of protocols used in datagram networking presume
best-effort non-sequential delivery. When errors are detected,
datagrams
are discarded.
However, in certain circumstances, it is advisable to provide a
reliable link, at least for a subset of the messages. The most
obvious case is when the link is compressed. Since the dictionary is
recovered from the compressed data stream, and a lost datagram
corrupts the dictionary, datagrams must not be lost. Not all
compression types will require a reliable data stream, since the cost
to detect and reset a corrupt dictionary is small.
The ISO 7776 LAPB can be used guarantee delivery. This is referred
to in this document as "Numbered Mode" to distinguish it from the use
of "Unnumbered Information", which is standard PPP framing practice.
Where multiple parallel links are used to emulate a single link of
higher speed, Bridged traffic, Source Routed traffic, and traffic
subjected to Van Jacobsen TCP/IP header compression must be delivered
to the higher layer in a certain sequence. However, the fact of the
links being relatively asynchronous makes traffic ordering uncertain.
The ISO 7776 Multi-Link Procedure MAY be used to restore order.
Implementation of the ISO Multi-Link Procedure is deprecated. It is
recommended that the PPP multilink procedure [4] be used instead.
2. Physical Layer Requirements
PPP Reliable Transmission imposes the same requirements that are
described in "PPP in HDLC Framing" [3], with the following
exceptions.
Control Signals
While PPP does not normally require the use of control signals,
implementation of Numbered-Mode LAPB or LAPD requires the
provision of control signals, which indicate when the link has
become connected or disconnected. These in turn provide the Up
and Down events to the LCP state machine.
Rand [Page 2]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
3. The Data Link Layer
Numbered-Mode affects only the Address and Control fields. The
remainder of the frame conforms to the framing in use for PPP.
The Address Field of the frame MUST take the value announced in the
Numbered-Mode Configuration Option, and the Control Field MAY take
any value valid in ISO 7776.
Once the link enters Numbered-Mode, Numbered-Mode MUST be used on all
frames, as some implementations do not support the use of the
Unnumbered-Information control field or the use of the All-Stations
address intermixed with Numbered-Mode frames.
3.1. Frame Format
The following frame format is valid under Numbered-Mode. The fields
are transmitted from left to right.
Numbered Mode
+----------+----------+----------+
| Flag | Address | Control |
| 01111110 |1-2 octets|1-2 octets|
+----------+----------+----------+
+----------+-------------+---------+
| Protocol | Information | Padding |
|1-2 octets| * | * |
+----------+-------------+---------+
+----------+----------+-----------------
| FCS | Flag | Inter-frame Fill
| 16 bits | 01111110 | or next Address
+----------+----------+-----------------
The Protocol, Information and Padding fields are described in the
Point-to-Point Protocol Encapsulation [1]. The FCS and Flag Sequence
fields are described in "PPP in HDLC Framing" [3].
4. Configuration Option Format
Description
The LCP Numbered-Mode Configuration Option negotiates the use of
Numbered-Mode on the link. By default or ultimate disagreement,
Unnumbered-Mode is used.
A summary of the Numbered-Mode Configuration Option format is shown
below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
Rand [Page 3]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
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 | Window | Address...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
11
Length
>= 4
Window
A value between 1 and 127. This indicates the number of frames
the receiver will buffer, which is the maximum number that the
sender should send without receiving an acknowledgement. If
window < 8, then modulo 8 sequencing is used on the link.
Otherwise, modulo 128 sequencing is used.
It is conceivable and legal that differing window values might be
announced. However, it is not permitted for one system to use
modulo 8 sequencing and the other to use modulo 128. Therefore,
the rule is: a Configure-Nak may reduce the window but may not
increase it.
Address
An HDLC Address as specified in ISO 3309. ISO 7776 specifies four
of the possible values: 1 and 3 for single link operation, 7 and
15 for the Multi-Link Procedure. Other values consistent with ISO
3309 are considered legal.
Implementation of the Multi-Link Procedure is optional; A
Configure-Nak may therefore force a change from MLP to single link
mode, but not the reverse.
Should the address be zero upon receipt, the receiver MUST
Configure-Nak with an appropriate address. If both peers send
address zero, the system advertising the numerically smaller
window will select the smaller address. If both windows are the
same size, a random choice MUST be made; when good sources of
randomness are used, the link will converge in a reasonable time.
Rand [Page 4]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
If magic numbers have been negotiated on the link, the system with
the numerically smaller magic number SHOULD specify the smaller
address.
5. Numbered-Mode Operation
When using the Numbered-Mode, each link is established in the usual
manner for the type of link. The Numbered-Mode Configuration Option
is negotiated, the Magic-Number Configuration Option MUST also be
negotiated, and the Address-and-Control-Field-Compression
Configuration Option MUST NOT be negotiated.
Following the successful negotiation of the Numbered-Mode
Configuration Option during LCP Link Establishment phase, the system
with the numerically smaller Magic-Number will send a SABM or
SABM(E), and the other will respond with a UA. In the event that
either the SABM or UA is lost, this exchange may be repeated
according to the same parameters as the configuration exchange
itself, using the Restart Timer and counter values. Authentication,
Link Quality Determination, and NCP Configuration follow this step.
Once the link has been established with Numbered-Mode, when re-
negotiation of link configuration occurs, the entire re-negotiation
MUST be conducted in Numbered-Mode. If the Numbered-Mode
Configuration Option is not successfully re-negotiated, the link
reverts to Unnumbered-Information operation prior to Authentication,
Link Quality Determination, and NCP Configuration.
When an implementation which is capable of Numbered-Mode, and is not
currently configured for Numbered-Mode operation, detects a frame
which has a correct FCS but does not have a UI Control octet, the
implementation MUST send a DM message, immediately followed by a LCP
Configure-Request.
When an implementation which is currently configured for Numbered-
Mode operation receives a DM message, it MUST revert to Unnumbered-
Information operation, and immediately send a LCP Configure-Request.
5.1. Single Link
When Network-Layer packets are sent over a single link, the packets
are encapsulated in the following order:
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | Numbered |
| Header |-->| Data |-->| Mode |--> link
| Compress | | Compress | | Header |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
Rand [Page 5]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
5.2. Inverse Multiplexing
Since sending several connections over a single link is often called
"multiplexing", sending packets from a single connection over
multiple parallel links is sometimes called "inverse-multiplexing".
By default, PPP performs no special processing for such links. Each
link is established and terminated independently, negotiates its own
configuration options, and may have different combinations of such
options as ACCM, Protocol Field Compression and IP-Address. This
facilitates using the links simultaneously over dissimilar media,
such as 56K sync with async backup.
Every link in a single machine MUST have different Magic Numbers, and
each end of every link between two peers SHOULD have Magic Numbers
which are unique to those peers. This protects against patch-panel
errors in addition to looped-back links.
The distribution to each link is controlled by higher level routing
mechanisms. When Network-Layer specific compression techniques (such
as Van Jacobsen Compression) rely on sequential delivery, without
Multi-Link Procedure support such compression MUST be applied on a
link by link basis.
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | Numbered |
+--->| Header |-->| Data |-->| Mode |--> link 1
| | Compress | | Compress | | Header |
+--------------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| Distribution |
+--------------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | | Numbered |
+--->| Header |-->| Data |-->| Mode |--> link 2
| Compress | | Compress | | Header |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
5.3. Using Multi-Link Procedure
This document does not offer a standard for ISO Multi-Link, but does
offer a method for agreeing on the addressing scheme usable with
Multi-Link. A sample implementation is shown below. Implementation
of Multi-Link is not required.
When using the ISO 7776 Multi-Link Procedure, each link is
established as described above. In addition, the Numbered-Mode
Configuration Option is negotiated with appropriate addresses for the
Multi-Link Procedure. The distribution to each link is controlled by
the Multi-Link Procedure, as is the recovery of sequence in the
receiving system.
Rand [Page 6]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
+---> link 1
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
| | | | | Multi | +--------------+
| Header |-->| Data |-->| Link |-->| Distribution |
| Compress | | Compress | | Procedure| +--------------+
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
+---> link 2
5.4. LAPB Parameter defaults
The following guidelines specify the default values of LAPB
configurable parameters.
Timer T1
Timer T1 is the maximum time permitted before a retransmission
is started, as a result of no response to a transmitted I
frame. This value must be greater than the time required for a
maximum sized frame to be received by the other side of the
link, and for a response to be generated for the frame. This
SHOULD be determined dynamically, based on the measured round
trip time delay of the link at the LAPB level. In the event
that the system cannot determine the round trip time of the
link, this value SHOULD be set to twice the bit rate of the
link, divided by the maximum number of bits per frame, plus 100
milliseconds processing time. For example, on a 14,400 bps
link, with a maximum frame size of 8000 bits (1000 octects),
the T1 value would be set to 3.7 seconds.
Timer T3
Timer T3 gives an indication of the idle state of the link.
Its value must be greater than the T1 value.
Maximum number of attempts to complete a transmission, N2
Parameter N2 gives the maximum number of retransmission
attempts for a given frame. If this value is exceeded, the
link SHOULD be terminated. The default value for parameter N2
SHOULD be 3.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Rand [Page 7]
RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission July 1994
References
[1] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
RFC 1661, Daydreamer, July 1994.
[2] ISO 7776, Information Processing Systems - Data Communication -
High Level Data Link Control Procedures - Description of the X.25
LAPB-Compatible DTE Data Link Procedures
[3] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP in HDLC Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662,
Daydreamer, July 1994.
[4] Sklower, K., "PPP MultiLink Procedure", Work in Progress.
Acknowledgments
Fred Baker was the original author of this document.
Bill Simpson contributed materially to the document.
Chair's Address
The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
Fred Baker
Advanced Computer Communications
315 Bollay Drive
Santa Barbara, California 93117
EMail: fbaker@acc.com
Author's Address
Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
Dave Rand
2180 Fortune Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
Phone: +1 408 321-1259
EMail: dave_rand@novell.com
Rand [Page 8]