diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt | 2467 |
1 files changed, 2467 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..33eb807 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4413.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2467 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group M. West +Request for Comments: 4413 S. McCann +Category: Informational Siemens/Roke Manor Research + March 2006 + + + TCP/IP Field Behavior + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + +Abstract + + This memo describes TCP/IP field behavior in the context of header + compression. Header compression is possible because most header + fields do not vary randomly from packet to packet. Many of the + fields exhibit static behavior or change in a more or less + predictable way. When a header compression scheme is designed, it is + of fundamental importance to understand the behavior of the fields in + detail. An example of this analysis can be seen in RFC 3095. This + memo performs a similar role for the compression of TCP/IP headers. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 2. General classification ..........................................4 + 2.1. IP Header Fields ...........................................5 + 2.1.1. IPv6 Header Fields ....................................5 + 2.1.2. IPv4 Header Fields ....................................7 + 2.2. TCP Header Fields .........................................10 + 2.3. Summary for IP/TCP ........................................11 + 3. Classification of Replicable Header Fields .....................11 + 3.1. IPv4 Header (Inner and/or Outer) ..........................12 + 3.2. IPv6 Header (inner and/or outer) ..........................14 + 3.3. TCP Header ................................................14 + 3.4. TCP Options ...............................................15 + 3.5. Summary of Replication ....................................16 + 4. Analysis of Change Patterns of Header Fields ...................16 + 4.1. IP Header .................................................19 + 4.1.1. IP Traffic-Class / Type-Of-Service (TOS) .............19 + 4.1.2. ECN Flags ............................................19 + 4.1.3. IP Identification ....................................20 + 4.1.4. Don't Fragment (DF) flag .............................22 + 4.1.5. IP Hop-Limit / Time-To-Live (TTL) ....................22 + 4.2. TCP Header ................................................23 + 4.2.1. Sequence Number ......................................23 + 4.2.2. Acknowledgement Number ...............................24 + 4.2.3. Reserved .............................................25 + 4.2.4. Flags ................................................25 + 4.2.5. Checksum .............................................26 + 4.2.6. Window ...............................................26 + 4.2.7. Urgent Pointer .......................................27 + 4.3. Options ...................................................27 + 4.3.1. Options Overview .....................................28 + 4.3.2. Option Field Behavior ................................29 + 5. Other Observations .............................................36 + 5.1. Implicit Acknowledgements .................................36 + 5.2. Shared Data ...............................................36 + 5.3. TCP Header Overhead .......................................37 + 5.4. Field Independence and Packet Behavior ....................37 + 5.5. Short-Lived Flows .........................................37 + 5.6. Master Sequence Number ....................................38 + 5.7. Size Constraint for TCP Options ...........................38 + 6. Security Considerations ........................................39 + 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................39 + 8. References .....................................................40 + 8.1. Normative References ......................................40 + 8.2. Informative References ....................................41 + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +1. Introduction + + This document describes the format of the TCP/IP header and the + header field behavior, i.e., how fields vary within a TCP flow. The + description is presented in the context of header compression. + + Since the IP header does exhibit slightly different behavior from + that previously presented in RFC 3095 [31] for UDP and RTP, it is + also included in this document. + + This document borrows much of the classification text from RFC 3095 + [31], rather than inserting many references to that document. + + According to the format presented in RFC 3095 [31], TCP/IP header + fields are classified and analyzed in two steps. First, we have a + general classification in Section 2, where the fields are classified + on the basis of stable knowledge and assumptions. This general + classification does not take into account the change characteristics + of changing fields, as those will vary more or less depending on the + implementation and on the application used. Section 3 considers how + field values can be used to optimize short-lived flows. A more + detailed analysis of the change characteristics is then done in + Section 4. Finally, Section 5 summarizes with conclusions about how + the various header fields should be handled by the header compression + scheme to optimize compression. + + A general question raised by this analysis is: what 'baseline' + definition of all possible TCP/IP implementations is to be + considered? This review is based on an analysis of currently + deployed TCP implementations supporting mechanisms standardised by + the IETF. + + The general requirement for transparency is also interesting. A + number of recent proposals for extensions to TCP use some of the + previously 'reserved' bits in the TCP packet header. Therefore, a + 'reserved' bit cannot be taken to have a guaranteed zero value; it + may change. Ideally, this should be accommodated by the compression + profile. + + A number of reserved bits are available for future expansion. A + treatment of field behavior cannot predict the future use of such + bits, but we expect that they will be used at some point. Given + this, a compression scheme can optimise for the current situation but + should be capable of supporting any arbitrary usage of the reserved + bits. However, it is impossible to optimise for usage patterns that + have yet to be defined. + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +2. General classification + + The following definitions (and some text) are copied from RFC 3095 + [31], Appendix A. Differences of IP field behavior between RFC 3095 + [31] (i.e., IP/UDP/RTP behavior for audio and video applications) and + this document have been identified. + + For the following, we define "session" as a TCP packet stream, being + a series of packets with the same IP addresses and port numbers. A + packet flow is defined by certain fields (see STATIC-DEF, below) and + may be considered a subset of a session. See [31] for a fuller + discussion of separation of sessions into streams of packets for + header compression. + + At a general level, the header fields are separated into 5 classes: + + o INFERRED + + These fields contain values that can be inferred from other + values (for example, the size of the frame carrying the packet) + and thus do not have to be handled at all by the compression + scheme. + + o STATIC + + These fields are expected to be constant throughout the + lifetime of the packet stream. Static information must in some + way be communicated once. + + o STATIC-DEF + + STATIC fields whose values define a packet stream. They are in + general handled as STATIC. + + o STATIC-KNOWN + + These STATIC fields are expected to have well-known values and + therefore do not need to be communicated at all. + + o CHANGING + + These fields are expected to vary randomly within a limited + value set or range or in some other manner. + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + In this section, each of the IP and TCP header fields is assigned to + one of these classes. For all fields except those classified as + CHANGING, the motives for the classification are also stated. In + section 4, CHANGING fields are further examined and classified on the + basis of their expected change behavior. + +2.1. IP Header Fields + +2.1.1. IPv6 Header Fields + + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Field | Size (bits) | Class | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Version | 4 | STATIC | + | DSCP* | 6 | ALTERNATING | + | ECT flag* | 1 | CHANGING | + | CE flag* | 1 | CHANGING | + | Flow Label | 20 | STATIC-DEF | + | Payload Length | 16 | INFERRED | + | Next Header | 8 | STATIC | + | Hop Limit | 8 | CHANGING | + | Source Address | 128 | STATIC-DEF | + | Destination Address | 128 | STATIC-DEF | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + * Differs from RFC 3095 [31]. (The DSCP, ECT, + and CE flags were amalgamated into the Traffic + Class octet in RFC 3095). + + Figure 1. IPv6 Header Fields + + o Version + + The version field states which IP version is used. Packets + with different values in this field must be handled by + different IP stacks. All packets of a packet stream must + therefore be of the same IP version. Accordingly, the field is + classified as STATIC. + + o Flow Label + + This field may be used to identify packets belonging to a + specific packet stream. If the field is not used, its value + should be zero. Otherwise, all packets belonging to the same + stream must have the same value in this field, it being one of + the fields that define the stream. The field is therefore + classified as STATIC-DEF. + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + o Payload Length + + Information about packet length (and, consequently, payload + length) is expected to be provided by the link layer. The + field is therefore classified as INFERRED. + + o Next Header + + This field will usually have the same value in all packets of a + packet stream. It encodes the type of the subsequent header. + Only when extension headers are sometimes absent will the field + change its value during the lifetime of the stream. The field + is therefore classified as STATIC. The classification of + STATIC is inherited from RFC 3095 [31]. However, note that the + next header field is actually determined by the type of the + following header. Thus, it might be more appropriate to view + this as an inference, although this depends upon the specific + implementation of the compression scheme. + + o Source and Destination Addresses + + These fields are part of the definition of a stream and + therefore must be constant for all packets in the stream. The + fields are therefore classified as STATIC-DEF. + + This might be considered as a slightly simplistic view. In + this document, the IP addresses are associated with the + transport layer connection and assumed to be part of the + definition of a flow. More complex flow-separation could, of + course, be considered (see also RFC 3095 [31] for more + discussion of this issue). Where tunneling is being performed, + the use of the IP addresses in outer tunnel headers is also + assumed to be STATIC-DEF. + + The total size of the fields in each class is as follows: + + +--------------+--------------+ + | Class | Size (octets)| + +--------------+--------------+ + | INFERRED | 2 | + | STATIC | 1.5 | + | STATIC-DEF | 34.5 | + | STATIC-KNOWN | 0 | + | CHANGING | 2 | + +--------------+--------------+ + + Figure 2: Field sizes + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +2.1.2. IPv4 Header Fields + + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Field | Size (bits) | Class | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Version | 4 | STATIC | + | Header Length | 4 | STATIC-KNOWN | + | DSCP* | 6 | ALTERNATING | + | ECT flag* | 1 | CHANGING | + | CE flag* | 1 | CHANGING | + | Packet Length | 16 | INFERRED | + | Identification | 16 | CHANGING | + | Reserved flag* | 1 | CHANGING | + | Don't Fragment flag*| 1 | CHANGING | + | More Fragments flag | 1 | STATIC-KNOWN | + | Fragment Offset | 13 | STATIC-KNOWN | + | Time To Live | 8 | CHANGING | + | Protocol | 8 | STATIC | + | Header Checksum | 16 | INFERRED | + | Source Address | 32 | STATIC-DEF | + | Destination Address | 32 | STATIC-DEF | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + * Differs from RFC 3095 [31]. (The DSCP, ECT + and CE flags were amalgamated into the TOS + octet in RFC 3095; the DF flag behavior is + considered later; the reserved field is + discussed below). + + Figure 3. IPv4 Header Fields + + o Version + + The version field states which IP version is used. Packets + with different values in this field must be handled by + different IP stacks. All packets of a packet stream must + therefore be of the same IP version. Accordingly, the field is + classified as STATIC. + + o Header Length + + As long as no options are present in the IP header, the header + length is constant and well known. If there are options, the + fields would be STATIC, but it is assumed here that there are + no options. The field is therefore classified as STATIC-KNOWN. + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + o Packet Length + + Information about packet length is expected to be provided by + the link layer. The field is therefore classified as INFERRED. + + o Flags + + The Reserved flag must be set to zero, as defined in RFC 791 + [1]. In RFC 3095 [31] the field is therefore classified as + STATIC-KNOWN. However, it is expected that reserved fields may + be used at some future point. It is undesirable to select an + encoding that would preclude the use of a compression profile + for a future change in the use of reserved fields. For this + reason, the alternative encoding of CHANGING is used. (A + compression profile can, of course, still optimise for the + current situation, where the field value is known to be 0). + + The More Fragments (MF) flag is expected to be zero because + fragmentation is, ideally, not expected. However, it is also + understood that some scenarios (for example, some tunnelling + architectures) do cause fragmentation. In general, though, + fragmentation is not expected to be common in the Internet due + to a combination of initial MSS negotiation and subsequent use + of path-MTU discovery. RFC 3095 [31] points out that, for RTP, + only the first fragment will contain the transport layer + protocol header; subsequent fragments would have to be + compressed with a different profile. This is also obviously + the case for TCP. If fragmentation were to occur, the first + fragment, by definition, would be relatively large, minimizing + the header overhead. Subsequent fragments would be compressed + with another profile. It is therefore considered undesirable + to optimise for fragmentation in performing header compression. + The More Fragments flag is therefore classified as STATIC- + KNOWN. + + o Fragment Offset + + Under the assumption that no fragmentation occurs, the fragment + offset is always zero. The field is therefore classified as + STATIC-KNOWN. Even if fragmentation were to be further + considered, only the first fragment would contain the TCP + header, and the fragment offset of this packet would still be + zero. + + o Protocol + + This field will usually have the same value in all packets of a + packet stream. It encodes the type of the subsequent header. + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + Only where the sequence of headers changes (e.g., an extension + header is inserted or deleted or a tunnel header is added or + removed) will the field change its value. The field is + therefore classified as STATIC. Whether such a change would + cause the sequence of packets to be treated as a new flow (for + header compression) is an issue for profile design. ROHC + profiles must be able to cope with extension headers and + tunnelling, but the choice of strategy is outside the scope of + this document. + + o Header Checksum + + The header checksum protects individual hops from processing a + corrupted header. When almost all IP header information is + compressed away, there is no point in having this additional + checksum. Instead, it can be regenerated at the decompressor + side. The field is therefore classified as INFERRED. + + Note that the TCP checksum does not protect the whole TCP/IP + header, but only the TCP pseudo-header (and the payload). + Compare this with ROHC [31], which uses a CRC to verify the + uncompressed header. Given the need to validate the complete + TCP/IP header, the cost of computing the TCP checksum over the + entire payload, and known weaknesses in the TCP checksum [37], + an additional check is necessary. Therefore, it is highly + desirable that some additional checksum (such as a CRC) will be + used to validate correct decompression. + + o Source and Destination Addresses + + These fields are part of the definition of a stream and must + thus be constant for all packets in the stream. The fields are + therefore classified as STATIC-DEF. + + The total size of the fields in each class is as follows: + + +--------------+--------------+ + | Class | Size (octets)| + +--------------+--------------+ + | INFERRED | 4 | + | STATIC* | 1.5 | + | STATIC-DEF | 8 | + | STATIC-KNOWN*| 2.25 | + | CHANGING* | 4.25 | + +--------------+--------------+ + * Differs from RFC 3095 [31] + + Figure 4. Field sizes + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +2.2. TCP Header Fields + + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Field | Size (bits) | Class | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + | Source Port | 16 | STATIC-DEF | + | Destination Port | 16 | STATIC-DEF | + | Sequence Number | 32 | CHANGING | + | Acknowledgement Num | 32 | CHANGING | + | Data Offset | 4 | INFERRED | + | Reserved | 4 | CHANGING | + | CWR flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | ECE flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | URG flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | ACK flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | PSH flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | RST flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | SYN flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | FIN flag | 1 | CHANGING | + | Window | 16 | CHANGING | + | Checksum | 16 | CHANGING | + | Urgent Pointer | 16 | CHANGING | + | Options | 0(-352) | CHANGING | + +---------------------+-------------+----------------+ + + Figure 5: TCP header fields + + o Source and Destination ports + + These fields are part of the definition of a stream and must thus + be constant for all packets in the stream. The fields are + therefore classified as STATIC-DEF. + + o Data Offset + + The number of 4 octet words in the TCP header, indicating the + start of the data. It is always a multiple of 4 octets. It can + be re-constructed from the length of any options, and thus it is + not necessary to carry this explicitly. The field is therefore + classified as INFERRED. + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +2.3. Summary for IP/TCP + + Summarizing this for IP/TCP, one obtains the following: + + +----------------+----------------+----------------+ + | Class \ IP ver | IPv6 (octets) | IPv4 (octets) | + +----------------+----------------+----------------+ + | INFERRED | 2 + 4 bits | 4 + 4 bits | + | STATIC | 1 + 4 bits | 1 + 4 bits | + | STATIC-DEF | 38 + 4 bits | 12 | + | STATIC-KNOWN | - | 2 + 2 bits | + | CHANGING | 17 + 4 bits | 19 + 6 bits | + +----------------+----------------+----------------+ + | Totals | 60 | 40 | + +----------------+----------------+----------------+ + (Excludes options, which are all classified as CHANGING). + + Figure 6. Overall field sizes + +3. Classification of Replicable Header Fields + + Where multiple flows either overlap in time or occur sequentially + within a short space of time, there can be a great deal of similarity + in header field values. Such commonality of field values is + reflected in the compression context. Thus, it should be possible to + utilise commonality between fields across different flows to improve + the compression ratio. In order to do this, it is important to + understand the 'replicable' characteristics of the various header + fields. + + The key concept is that of 'replication': an existing context is used + as a baseline and replicated to initialise a new context. Those + fields that are the same are then automatically initialised in the + new context. Those that have changed will be updated or overwritten + with values from the initialisation packet that triggered the + replication. This section considers the commonality between fields + in different flows. + + Note, however, that replication is based on contexts (rather than on + just field values), so compressor-created fields that are part of the + context may also be included. These, of course, are dependent upon + the nature of the compression protocol (ROHC profile) being applied. + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + A brief analysis of the relationship of TCP/IP fields among + 'replicable' packet streams follows. + + 'N/A': The field need not be considered in the replication + process, as it is inferred or known 'a priori' (and, + therefore, does not appear in the context). + + 'No': The field cannot be replicated since its change pattern + between two packet flows is uncorrelated. + + 'Yes': The field may be replicated. This does not guarantee that + the field value will be the same across two candidate + streams, only that it might be possible to exploit + replication to increase the compression ratio. Specific + encoding methods can be used to improve the compression + efficiency. + +3.1. IPv4 Header (Inner and/or Outer) + + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Field | Class | Replicable | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Version | STATIC | N/A | + | Header Length | STATIC-KNOWN | N/A | + | DSCP | ALTERNATING | No (1) | + | ECT flag | CHANGING | No (2) | + | CE flag | CHANGING | No (2) | + | Packet Length | INFERRED | N/A | + | Identification | CHANGING | Yes (3) | + | Reserved flag | CHANGING | No (4) | + | Don't Fragment flag | CHANGING | Yes (5) | + | More Fragments flag | STATIC-KNOWN | N/A | + | Fragment Offset | STATIC-KNOWN | N/A | + | Time To Live | CHANGING | Yes | + | Protocol | STATIC | N/A | + | Header Checksum | INFERRED | N/A | + | Source Address | STATIC-DEF | Yes | + | Destination Address | STATIC-DEF | Yes | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + + Figure 7: IPv4 header + + (1) The DSCP is marked according to the application's requirements. + If it can be assumed that replicable connections belong to the + same diffserv class, then it is likely that the DSCP will be + replicable. The DSCP can be set not only by the sender but by + any packet marker. Thus, a flow may have a number of DSCP values + at different points in the network. However, header compression + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + operates on a point-to-point link and so would expect to see a + relatively stable value. If re-marking is being done based on + the state of a meter, then the value may change mid-flow. + Overall, though, we expect supporting replication of the DSCP to + be useful for header compression. + + (2) It is not possible for the ECN bits to be replicated (note that + use of the ECN nonce scheme [19] is anticipated). However, it + seems likely that all TCP flows between ECN-capable hosts will + use ECN, the use (or not) of ECN for flows between the same end- + points might be considered replicable. See also note (4). + + (3) The replicable context for this field includes the IP-ID, NBO, + and RND flags (as described in ROHC RTP). This highlights that + the replication is of the context, rather than just the header + field values and, as such, needs to be considered based on the + exact nature of compression applied to each field. + + (4) Since the possible future behavior of the 'Reserved Flag' cannot + be predicted, it is not considered as replicable. However, it + might be expected that the behavior of the reserved flag between + the same end-points will be similar. In this case, any selection + of packet formats (for example) based on this behavior might + carry across to the new flow. In the case of packet formats, + this can probably be considered as a compressor-local decision. + + (5) In theory, the DF bit may be replicable. However, this is not + guaranteed and, in practice, it is unlikely to be useful to do + this. From the perspective of header compression, having to + indicate whether or not a 1-bit flag should be replicated or + specified explicitly is likely to require more bits than simply + conveying the value of the flag. We do not rule out DF + replication. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +3.2. IPv6 Header (inner and/or outer) + + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Field | Class | Replicable | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Version | STATIC | N/A | + | Traffic Class | CHANGING | Yes (1) | + | ECT flag | CHANGING | No (2) | + | CE flag | CHANGING | No (2) | + | Flow Label | STATIC-DEF | N/A | + | Payload Length | INFERRED | N/A | + | Next Header | STATIC | N/A | + | Hop Limit | CHANGING | Yes | + | Source Address | STATIC-DEF | Yes | + | Destination Address | STATIC-DEF | Yes | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + (1) See comment about DSCP field for IPv4, above. + (2) See comment about ECT and CE flags for IPv4, above. + + Figure 8. IPv6 Header + +3.3. TCP Header + + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Field | Class | Replicable | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + | Source Port | STATIC-DEF | Yes (1) | + | Destination Port | STATIC-DEF | Yes (1) | + | Sequence Number | CHANGING | No (2) | + | Acknowledgement Number| CHANGING | No | + | Data Offset | INFERRED | N/A | + | Reserved Bits | CHANGING | No (3) | + | Flags | | | + | CWR | CHANGING | No (4) | + | ECE | CHANGING | No (4) | + | URG | CHANGING | No | + | ACK | CHANGING | No | + | PSH | CHANGING | No | + | RST | CHANGING | No | + | SYN | CHANGING | No | + | FIN | CHANGING | No | + | Window | CHANGING | Yes | + | Checksum | CHANGING | No | + | Urgent Pointer | CHANGING | Yes (5) | + +-----------------------+---------------+------------+ + + Figure 9: TCP Header + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + (1) On the server side, the port number is likely to be a well-known + value. On the client side, the port number is generally selected + by the stack automatically. Whether the port number is + replicable depends upon how the stack chooses the port number. + Whilst most implementations use a simple scheme that sequentially + picks the next available port number, it may not be desirable to + rely on this behavior. + + (2) With the recommendation (and expected deployment) of TCP Initial + Sequence Number randomization, defined in RFC 1948 [10], it will + be impossible to share the sequence number. Thus, this field + will not be regarded as replicable. + + (3) See comment (4) for the IPv4 header, above. + + (4) See comment (2) on ECN flags for the IPv4 header, above. + + (5) The urgent pointer is very rarely used. This means that, in + practice, the field may be considered replicable. + +3.4. TCP Options + + +---------------------------+--------------+------------+ + | Option | SYN-only (1) | Replicable | + +---------------------------+--------------+------------+ + | End of Option List | No | No (2) | + | No-Operation | No | No (2) | + | Maximum Segment Size | Yes | Yes | + | Window Scale | Yes | Yes | + | SACK-Permitted | Yes | Yes | + | SACK | No | No | + | Timestamp | No | No | + +---------------------------+--------------+------------+ + + Figure 10. TCP Options + + (1) This indicates whether the option only appears in SYN packets. + Options that are not 'SYN-only' may appear in any packet. Many + TCP options are used only in SYN packets. Some options, such as + MSS, Window Scale, and SACK-Permitted, will tend to have the same + value among replicable packet streams. + + Thus, to support context sharing, the compressor should maintain + such TCP options in the context (even though they only appear in + the SYN segment). + + (2) Since these options have fixed values, they could be regarded as + replicable. However, the only interesting thing to convey about + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + these options is their presence. If it is known that such an + option exists, its value is defined. + +3.5. Summary of Replication + + From the above analysis, it can be seen that there are reasonable + grounds for exploiting redundancy between flows as well as between + packets within a flow. Simply consider the advantage of being able + to elide the source and destination addresses for a repeated + connection between two IPv6 endpoints. There will also be a cost (in + terms of complexity and robustness) for replicating contexts, and + this must be considered when one decides what constitutes an + appropriate solution. + + Finally, note that the use of replication requires that the + compressor have a suitable degree of confidence that the source data + is present and correct at the decompressor. This may place some + restrictions on which of the 'changing' fields, in particular, can be + utilised during replication. + +4. Analysis of Change Patterns of Header Fields + + To design suitable mechanisms for efficient compression of all header + fields, their change patterns must be analyzed. For this reason, an + extended classification is done based on the general classification + in 2, considering the fields that were labeled CHANGING in that + classification. + + The CHANGING fields are separated into five different subclasses: + + o STATIC + + These are fields that were classified as CHANGING on a general + basis, but that are classified as STATIC here due to certain + additional assumptions. + + o SEMISTATIC + + These fields are STATIC most of the time. However, occasionally + the value changes but reverts to its original value after a known + number of packets. + + o RARELY-CHANGING (RC) + + These are fields that change their values occasionally and then + keep their new values. + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + o ALTERNATING + + These fields alternate between a small number of different values. + + o IRREGULAR + + These, finally, are the fields for which no useful change pattern + can be identified. + + To further expand the classification possibilities without increasing + complexity, the classification can be done either according to the + values of the field and/or according to the values of the deltas for + the field. + + When the classification is done, other details are also stated + regarding possible additional knowledge about the field values and/or + field deltas, according to the classification. For fields classified + as STATIC or SEMISTATIC, the value of the field could be not only + STATIC but also well-KNOWN a priori (two states for SEMISTATIC + fields). For fields with non-irregular change behavior, it could be + known that changes are usually within a LIMITED range compared to the + maximal change for the field. For other fields, the values are + completely UNKNOWN. + + Figure 11 classifies all the CHANGING fields on the basis of their + expected change patterns. (4) refers to IPv4 fields and (6) refers to + IPv6. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | Field | Value/Delta | Class | Knowledge | + +========================+=============+=============+=============+ + | DSCP(4) / Tr.Class(6) | Value | ALTERNATING | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | IP ECT flag(4) | Value | RC | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | IP CE flag(4) | Value | RC | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | Sequential | Delta | STATIC | KNOWN | + | -----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | IP Id(4) Seq. jump | Delta | RC | LIMITED | + | -----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | Random | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | IP DF flag(4) | Value | RC | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | IP TTL(4) / Hop Lim(6) | Value | ALTERNATING | LIMITED | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Sequence Number | Delta | IRREGULAR | LIMITED | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Acknowledgement Num| Delta | IRREGULAR | LIMITED | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Reserved | Value | RC | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP flags | | | | + | ECN flags | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | CWR flag | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | ECE flag | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | URG flag | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | ACK flag | Value | SEMISTATIC | KNOWN | + | PSH flag | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | RST flag | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + | SYN flag | Value | SEMISTATIC | KNOWN | + | FIN flag | Value | SEMISTATIC | KNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Window | Value | ALTERNATING | KNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Checksum | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Urgent Pointer | Value | IRREGULAR | KNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + | TCP Options | Value | IRREGULAR | UNKNOWN | + +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ + + Figure 11. Classification of CHANGING Fields + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + The following subsections discuss the various header fields in + detail. Note that Table 1 and the discussion below do not consider + changes caused by loss or reordering before the compression point. + +4.1. IP Header + +4.1.1. IP Traffic-Class / Type-Of-Service (TOS) + + The Traffic-Class (IPv6) or Type-Of-Service/DSCP (IPv4) field might + be expected to change during the lifetime of a packet stream. This + analysis considers several RFCs that describe modifications to the + original RFC 791 [1]. + + The TOS byte was initially described in RFC 791 [1] as 3 bits of + precedence followed by 3 bits of TOS and 2 reserved bits (defined to + be zero). RFC 1122 [21] extended this to specify 5 bits of TOS, + although the meanings of the additional 2 bits were not defined. RFC + 1349 [23] defined the 4th bit of TOS as 'minimize monetary cost'. + The next significant change was in RFC 2474 [14] (obsoleting RFC 1349 + [23]). RFC 2474 reworked the TOS octet as 6 bits of DSCP (DiffServ + Code Point) plus 2 unused bits. Most recently, RFC 2780 [30] + identified the 2 reserved bits in the TOS or traffic class octet for + experimental use with ECN. + + It is therefore proposed that the TOS (or traffic class) octet be + classified as 6 bits for the DSCP and 2 additional bits. These 2 + bits may be expected to be zero or to contain ECN data. From a + future-proofing perspective, it is preferable to assume the use of + ECN, especially with respect to TCP. + + It is also considered important that the profile work with legacy + stacks, since these will be in existence for some considerable time + to come. For simplicity, this will be considered as 6 bits of TOS + information and 2 bits of ECN data, so the fields are always + considered to be structured the same way. + + The DSCP (as for TOS in ROHC RTP) is not expected to change + frequently (although it could change mid-flow, for example, as a + result of a route change). + +4.1.2. ECN Flags + + Initially, we describe the ECN flags as specified in RFC 2481 [15] + and RFC 3168 [18]. Subsequently, a suggested update is described + that would alter the behavior of the flags. + + In RFC 2481 [15] there are 2 separate flags, the ECT (ECN Capable + Transport) flag and the CE (Congestion Experienced) flag. The ECT + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + flag, if negotiated by the TCP stack, will be '1' for all data + packets and '0' for all 'pure acknowledgement' packets. This means + that the behavior of the ECT flag is linked to behavior in the TCP + stack. Whether this can be exploited for compression is not clear. + + The CE flag is only used if ECT is set to '1'. It is set to '0' by + the sender and can be set to '1' by an ECN-capable router in the + network to indicate congestion. Thus the CE flag is expected to be + randomly set to '1' with a probability dependent on the congestion + state of the network and the position of the compressor in the path. + Therefore, a compressor located close to the receiver in a congested + network will see the CE bit set frequently, but a compressor located + close to a sender will rarely, if ever, see the CE bit set to '1'. + + A recent experimental proposal [19] suggests an alternative view of + these 2 bits. This considers the two bits together to have 4 + possible codepoints. Meanings are then assigned to the codepoints: + + 00 Not ECN capable + 01 ECN capable, no congestion (known as ECT(0)) + 10 ECN capable, no congestion (known as ECT(1)) + 11 Congestion experienced + + The use of 2 codepoints for signaling ECT allows the sender to detect + when a receiver is not reliably echoing congestion information. + + For the purposes of compression, this update means that ECT(0) and + ECT(1) are equally likely (for an ECN capable flow) and that '11' + will be seen relatively rarely. The probability of seeing a + congestion indication is discussed above in the description of the CE + flag. + + It is suggested that, for the purposes of compression, ECN with + nonces be assumed as the baseline, although the compression scheme + must be able to compress the original ECN scheme transparently. + +4.1.3. IP Identification + + The Identification field (IP ID) of the IPv4 header identifies which + fragments constitute a datagram, when fragmented datagrams are + reassembled. The IPv4 specification does not specify exactly how + this field is to be assigned values, only that each packet should get + an IP ID that is unique for the source-destination pair and protocol + for the time during which the datagram (or any of its fragments) + could be alive in the network. This means that assignment of IP ID + values can be done in various ways, which we have separated into + three classes: + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + o Sequential jump + + This is the most common assignment policy in today's IP stacks. A + single IP ID counter is used for all packet streams. When the + sender is running more than one packet stream simultaneously, the + IP ID can increase by more than one between packets in a stream. + The IP ID values will be much more predictable and will require + fewer bits to transfer than random values, and the packet-to- + packet increment (determined by the number of active outgoing + packet streams and sending frequencies) will usually be limited. + + o Random + + Some IP stacks assign IP ID values by using a pseudo-random number + generator. There is thus no correlation between the ID values of + subsequent datagrams. Therefore, there is no way to predict the + IP ID value for the next datagram. For header compression + purposes, this means that the IP ID field needs to be sent + uncompressed with each datagram, resulting in two extra octets of + header. IP stacks in cellular terminals that need optimum header + compression efficiency should not use this IP ID assignment + policy. + + o Sequential + + This assignment policy keeps a separate counter for each outgoing + packet stream, and thus the IP ID value will increment by one for + each packet in the stream, except at wrap around. Therefore, the + delta value of the field is constant and well known a priori. + This assignment policy is the most desirable for header + compression purposes. However, its usage is not as common as it + perhaps should be. + + In order to avoid violating RFC 791 [1], packets sharing the same + IP address pair and IP protocol number cannot use the same IP ID + values. Therefore, implementations of sequential policies must + make the ID number spaces disjoint for packet streams of the same + IP protocol going between the same pair of nodes. This can be + done in a number of ways, all of which introduce occasional jumps + and thus make the policy less than perfectly sequential. For + header compression purposes, less frequent jumps are preferred. + + Note that the ID is an IPv4 mechanism and is therefore not a problem + for IPv6. For IPv4, the ID could be handled in three different ways. + First, we have the inefficient but reliable solution where the ID + field is sent as-is in all packets, increasing the compressed headers + by two octets. This is the best way to handle the ID field if the + sender uses random assignment of the ID field. Second, there can be + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + solutions with more flexible mechanisms that require fewer bits for + the ID handling as long as sequential jump assignment is used. Such + solutions will probably require even more bits if random assignment + is used by the sender. Knowledge about the sender's assignment + policy could therefore be useful when choosing between the two + solutions above. Finally, even for IPv4, header compression could be + designed without any additional information for the ID field included + in compressed headers. To use such schemes, it must be known which + assignment policy for the ID field is being used by the sender. That + might not be possible to know, which implies that the applicability + of such solutions is very uncertain. However, designers of IPv4 + stacks for cellular terminals should use an assignment policy close + to sequential. + + With regard to TCP compression, the behavior of the IP ID field is + essentially the same. However, in RFC 3095 [31], the IP ID is + generally inferred from the RTP Sequence Number. There is no obvious + candidate in the TCP case for a field to offer this 'master sequence + number' role. + + Clearly, from a busy server, the observed behavior may well be quite + erratic. This is a case where the ability to share the IP + compression context between a number of flows (between the same end- + points) could offer potential benefits. However, this would only + have any real impact where there is a large number of flows between + one machine and the server. If context sharing is being considered, + then it is preferable to share the IP part of the context. + +4.1.4. Don't Fragment (DF) flag + + Path-MTU discovery (RFC 1191 for IPv4 [6] and RFC 1981 for IPv6 [11]) + is widely deployed for TCP, in contrast to little current use for UDP + packet streams. This employs the DF flag value of '1' to detect the + need for fragmentation in the end-to-end path and to probe the + minimum MTU along the network path. End hosts using this technique + may be expected to send all packets with DF set to '1', although a + host may end PMTU discovery by clearing the DF bit to '0'. Thus, for + compression, we expect the field value to be stable. + +4.1.5. IP Hop-Limit / Time-To-Live (TTL) + + The Hop-Limit (IPv6) or Time-To-Live (IPv4) field is expected to be + constant during the lifetime of a packet stream or to alternate + between a limited number of values due to route changes. + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +4.2. TCP Header + + Any discussion of compressability of TCP fields borrows heavily from + RFC 1144 [22]. However, the premise of how the compression is + performed is slightly different, and the protocol has evolved + slightly in the intervening time. + +4.2.1. Sequence Number + + Understanding the sequence and acknowledgement number behavior is + essential for a TCP compression scheme. + + At the simplest level, the behavior of the sequence number can be + described relatively easily. However, there are a number of + complicating factors that also need to be considered. + + For transferring in-sequence data packets, the sequence number will + increment for each packet by between 0 and an upper limit defined by + the MSS (Maximum Segment Size) and, if it is being used, by Path-MTU + discovery. + + There are common MSS values, but these can be quite variable and + unpredictable for any given flow. Given this variability and the + range of window sizes, it is hard (compared with the RTP case, for + example) to select a 'one size fits all' encoding for the sequence + number. (The same argument applies equally to the acknowledgement + number). + + Note that the increment of the sequence number in a packet is the + size of the data payload of that packet (including the SYN and FIN + flags). This is, of course, exactly the relationship that RFC 1144 + [22] exploits to compress the sequence number in the most efficient + case. This technique may not be directly applicable to a robust + solution, but it may be a useful relationship to consider. + + However, at any point on the path (i.e., wherever a compressor might + be deployed), the sequence number can be anywhere within a range + defined by the TCP window. This is a combination of a number of + values (buffer space at the sender; advertised buffer size at the + receiver; and TCP congestion control algorithms). Missing packets or + retransmissions can cause the TCP sequence number to fluctuate within + the limits of this window. + + It is desirable to be able to predict the sequence number with some + regularity. However, this also appears to be difficult to do. For + example, during bulk data transfer, the sequence number will tend to + go up by 1 MSS per packet (assuming no packet loss). Higher layer + values have been seen to have an impact as well, where sequence + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + number behavior has been observed with an 8 kbyte repeating pattern + -- 5 segments of 1460 bytes followed by 1 segment of 892 bytes. The + implementation of TCP and the management of buffers within a protocol + stack can affect the behavior of the sequence number. + + It may be possible to track the TCP window by the compressor, + allowing it to bound the size of these jumps. + + For interactive flows (for example, telnet), the sequence number will + change by small, irregular amounts. In this case, the Nagle + algorithm [3] commonly applies, coalescing small packets where + possible in order to reduce the basic header overhead. This may also + mean that predictable changes in the sequence number are less likely + to occur. The Nagle algorithm is an optimisation and is not required + to be used (applications can disable its use). However, it is turned + on by default in all common TCP implementations. + + Note also that the SYN and FIN flags (which have to be acknowledged) + each consume 1 byte of sequence space. + +4.2.2. Acknowledgement Number + + Much of the information about the sequence number applies equally to + the acknowledgement number. However, there are some important + differences. + + For bulk data transfers, there will tend to be 1 acknowledgement for + every 2 data segments. The algorithm is specified in RFC 2581 [16]. + An ACK need not always be sent immediately on receipt of a data + segment, but it must be sent within 500ms and should be generated for + at least every second full-size segment (MSS) of received data. It + may be seen from this that the delta for the acknowledgement number + is roughly twice that of the sequence number. This is not always the + case, and the discussion about sequence number irregularity should be + applied. + + As an aside, a common implementation bug is 'stretch ACKs' [33] + (acknowledgements may be generated less frequently than every two + full-size data segments). This pattern can also occur following loss + on the return path. + + Since the acknowledgement number is cumulative, dropped packets in + the forward path will result in the acknowledgement number remaining + constant for a time in the reverse direction. Retransmission of a + dropped segment can then cause a substantial jump in the + acknowledgement number. These jumps in acknowledgement number are + bounded by the TCP window, just as for the jumps in sequence number. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + In the acknowledgement case, information about the advertised + received window gives a bound to the size of any ACK jump. + +4.2.3. Reserved + + This field is reserved, and it therefore might be expected to be + zero. This can no longer be assumed, due to future-proofing. It is + only a matter of time before a suggestion for using the flag is made. + +4.2.4. Flags + + o ECN-E (Explicit Congestion Notification) + + '1' to echo CE bit in IP header. It will be set in several + consecutive headers (until 'acknowledged' by CWR). If ECN nonces + are used, then there will be a 'nonce-sum' (NS) bit in the flags, + as well. Again, transparency of the reserved bits is crucial for + future-proofing this compression scheme. From an + efficiency/compression standpoint, the NS bit will either be + unused (always '0') or randomly changing. The nonce sum is the + 1-bit sum of the ECT codepoints, as described in [19]. + + o CWR (Congestion Window Reduced) + + '1' to signal congestion window reduced on ECN. It will generally + be set in individual packets. The flag will be set once per loss + event. Thus, the probability of its being set is proportional to + the degree of congestion in the network, but it is less likely to + be set than the CE flag. + + o ECE (Echo Congestion Experience) + + If 'congestion experienced' is signaled in a received IP header, + this is echoed through the ECE bit in segments sent by the + receiver until acknowledged by seeing the CWR bit set. Clearly, + in periods of high congestion and/or long RTT, this flag will + frequently be set to '1'. + + During connection open (SYN and SYN/ACK packets), the ECN bits + have special meaning: + + * CWR and ECN-E are both set with SYN to indicate desire to use + ECN. + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + * CWR only is set in SYN-ACK, to agree to ECN. + + (The difference in bit-patterns for the negotiation is such that + it will work with broken stacks that reflect the value of + reserved bits). + + o URG (Urgent Flag) + + '1' to indicate urgent data (which is unlikely with any flag other + than ACK). + + o ACK (Acknowledgement) + + '1' for all except the initial 'SYN' packet. + + o PSH (Push Function Field) + + Generally accepted to be randomly '0' or '1'. However, it may be + biased more to one value than the other (this is largely caused by + the implementation of the stack). + + o RST (Reset Connection) + + '1' to reset a connection (unlikely with any flag other than ACK). + + o SYN (Synchronize Sequence Number) + + '1' for the SYN/SYN-ACK, only at the start of a connection. + + o FIN (End of Data: FINished) + + '1' to indicate 'no more data' (unlikely with any flag other than + ACK). + +4.2.5. Checksum + + Carried as the end-to-end check for the TCP data. See RFC 1144 [22] + for a discussion of why this should be carried. A header compression + scheme should not rely upon the TCP checksum for robustness, though, + and should apply appropriate error-detection mechanisms of its own. + The TCP checksum has to be considered to be randomly changing. + +4.2.6. Window + + This may oscillate randomly between 0 and the receiver's window limit + (for the connection). + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + In practice, the window will either not change or alternate between a + relatively small number of values. Particularly when the window is + closing (its value is getting smaller), the change in window is + likely to be related to the segment size, but it is not clear that + this necessarily offers any compression advantage. When the window + is opening, the effect of 'Silly-Window Syndrome' avoidance should be + remembered. This prevents the window from opening by small amounts + that would encourage the sender to clock out small segments. + + When thinking about what fields might change in a sequence of TCP + segments, one should note that the receiver can generate 'window + update' segments in which only the window advertisement changes. + +4.2.7. Urgent Pointer + + From a compression point of view, the Urgent Pointer is interesting + because it offers an example where 'semantically identical' + compression is not the same as 'bitwise identical'. This is because + the value of the Urgent Pointer is only valid if the URG flag is set. + + However, the TCP checksum must be passed transparently, in order to + maintain its end-to-end integrity checking property. Since the TCP + checksum includes the Urgent Pointer in its coverage, this enforces + bitwise transparency of the Urgent Pointer. Thus, the issue of + 'semantic' vs. 'bitwise' identity is presented as a note: the Urgent + Pointer must be compressed in a way that preserves its value. + + If the URG flag is set, then the Urgent Pointer indicates the end of + the urgent data and thus can point anywhere in the window. It may be + set (and changing) over several segments. Note that urgent data is + rarely used, since it is not a particularly clean way of managing + out-of-band data. + +4.3. Options + + Options occupy space at the end of the TCP header. All options are + included in the checksum. An option may begin on any byte boundary. + The TCP header must be padded with zeros to make the header length a + multiple of 32 bits. + + Optional header fields are identified by an option kind field. + Options 0 and 1 are exactly one octet, which is their kind field. + All other options have their one-octet kind field, followed by a + one-octet length field, followed by length-2 octets of option data. + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +4.3.1. Options Overview + + The IANA provides the authoritative list of TCP options. Figure 12 + describes the current allocations at the time of publication. Any + new option would have a 'kind' value assigned by IANA. The list is + available at [20]. Where applicable, the associated RFC is also + cited. + + +----+-------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+ + |Kind|Length | Meaning | RFC | Use | + | |octets | | | | + +----+-------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+ + | 0 | - | End of Option List | RFC 793 | * | + | 1 | - | No-Operation | RFC 793 | * | + | 2 | 4 | Maximum Segment Size | RFC 793 | * | + | 3 | 3 | WSopt - Window Scale | RFC 1323 | * | + | 4 | 2 | SACK Permitted | RFC 2018 | * | + | 5 | N | SACK | RFC 2018 | * | + | 6 | 6 | Echo (obsoleted by option 8) | RFC 1072 | | + | 7 | 6 | Echo Reply (obsoleted by option 8) | RFC 1072 | | + | 8 | 10 | TSopt - Time Stamp Option | RFC 1323 | * | + | 9 | 2 | Partial Order Connection Permitted | RFC 1693 | | + | 10 | 3 | Partial Order Service Profile | RFC 1693 | | + | 11 | 6 | CC | RFC 1644 | | + | 12 | 6 | CC.NEW | RFC 1644 | | + | 13 | 6 | CC.ECHO | RFC 1644 | | + | 14 | 3 | Alternate Checksum Request | RFC 1146 | | + | 15 | N | Alternate Checksum Data | RFC 1146 | | + | 16 | | Skeeter | | | + | 17 | | Bubba | | | + | 18 | 3 | Trailer Checksum Option | | | + | 19 | 18 | MD5 Signature Option | RFC 2385 | | + | 20 | | SCPS Capabilities | | | + | 21 | | Selective Negative Acks | | | + | 22 | | Record Boundaries | | | + | 23 | | Corruption experienced | | | + | 24 | | SNAP | | | + | 25 | | Unassigned (released 12/18/00) | | | + | 26 | | TCP Compression Filter | | | + +----+-------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+ + + Figure 12. Common TCP Options + + The 'use' column is marked with '*' to indicate options that are most + likely to be seen in TCP flows. Also note that RFC 1072 [4] has been + obsoleted by RFC 1323 [7], although the original bit usage is defined + only in RFC 1072. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +4.3.2. Option Field Behavior + + Generally speaking, all option fields have been classified as + changing. This section describes the behavior of each option + referenced within an RFC, listed by 'kind' indicator. + + 0: End of Option List + + This option code indicates the end of the option list. This + might not coincide with the end of the TCP header according to + the Data Offset field. This is used at the end of all options, + not at the end of each option, and it need only be used if the + end of the options would not otherwise coincide with the end of + the TCP header. Defined in RFC 793 [2]. + + There is no data associated with this option, so a compression + scheme must simply be able to encode its presence. However, + note that since this option marks the end of the list and the + TCP options are 4-octet aligned, there may be octets of padding + (defined to be '0' in [2]) after this option. + + 1: No-Operation + + This option code may be used between options, for example, to + align the beginning of a subsequent option on a word boundary. + There is no guarantee that senders will use this option, so + receivers must be prepared to process options even if they do + not begin on a word boundary RFC 793 [2]. There is no data + associated with this option, so a compression scheme must + simply be able to encode its presence. This may be done by + noting that the option simply maintains a certain alignment and + that compression need only convey this alignment. In this way, + padding can just be removed. + + 2: Maximum Segment Size + + If this option is present, then it communicates the maximum + segment size that may be used to send a packet to this end- + host. This field must only be sent in the initial connection + request (i.e., in segments with the SYN control bit set). If + this option is not used, any segment size is allowed RFC 793 + [2]. + + This option is very common. The segment size is a 16-bit + quantity. Theoretically, this could take any value; however + there are a number of values that are common. For example, + 1460 bytes is very common for TCP/IPv4 over Ethernet (though + with the increased prevalence of tunnels, for example, smaller + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + values such as 1400 have become more popular). 536 bytes is the + default MSS value. This may allow for common values to be + encoded more efficiently. + + 3: Window Scale Option (WSopt) + + This option may be sent in a SYN segment by the TCP end-host + (1) to indicate that the sending TCP end-host is prepared to + perform both send and receive window scaling, and + (2) to communicate a scale factor to be applied to its receive + window. + + The scale factor is encoded logarithmically as a power of 2 + (presumably to be implemented by binary shifts). Note that the + window in the SYN segment itself is never scaled (RFC 1072 + [4]). This option may be sent in an initial segment (i.e., in + a segment with the SYN bit on and the ACK bit off). It may + also be sent in later segments, but only if a Window Scale + option was received in the initial segment. A Window Scale + option in a segment without a SYN bit should be ignored. The + Window field in a SYN segment itself is never scaled (RFC 1323 + [7]). + + The use of window scaling does not affect the encoding of any + other field during the lifetime of the flow. Only the encoding + of the window scaling option itself is important. The window + scale must be between 0 and 14 (inclusive). Generally, smaller + values would be expected (a window scale of 14 allows for a + 1Gbyte window, which is extremely large). + + 4: SACK-Permitted + + This option may be sent in a SYN by a TCP that has been + extended to receive (and presumably to process) the SACK option + once the connection has opened RFC 2018 [12]. There is no data + in this option all that is required is for the presence of the + option to be encoded. + + 5: SACK + + This option is to be used to convey extended acknowledgment + information over an established connection. Specifically, it + is to be sent by a data receiver to inform the data transmitter + of non-contiguous blocks of data that have been received and + queued. The data receiver awaits the receipt of data in later + retransmissions to fill the gaps in sequence space between + these blocks. At that time, the data receiver acknowledges the + data, normally by advancing the left window edge in the + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + Acknowledgment Number field of the TCP header. It is important + to understand that the SACK option will not change the meaning + of the Acknowledgment Number field, whose value will still + specify the left window edge, i.e., one byte beyond the last + sequence number of fully received data (RFC 2018 [12]). + + If SACK has been negotiated (through an exchange of SACK- + Permitted options), then this option may occur when dropped + segments are noticed by the receiver. Because this identifies + ranges of blocks within the receiver's window, it can be viewed + as a base value with a number of offsets. The base value (left + edge of the first block) can be viewed as offset from the TCP + acknowledgement number. There can be up to 4 SACK blocks in a + single option. SACK blocks may occur in a number of segments + (if there is more out-of-order data 'on the wire'), and this + will typically extend the size of or add to the existing + blocks. + + Alternative proposals such as DSACK RFC 2883 [17] do not + fundamentally change the behavior of the SACK block, from the + point of view of the information contained within it. + + 6: Echo + + This option carries information that the receiving TCP may send + back in a subsequent TCP Echo Reply option (see below). A TCP + may send the TCP Echo option in any segment, but only if a TCP + Echo option was received in a SYN segment for the connection. + When the TCP echo option is used for RTT measurement, it will + be included in data segments, and the four information bytes + will define the time at which the data segment was transmitted + in any format convenient to the sender (see RFC 1072 [4]). + + The Echo option is generally not used in practice -- it is + obsoleted by the Timestamp option. However, for transparency + it is desirable that a compression scheme be able to transport + it. (However, there is no benefit in attempting any treatment + more sophisticated than viewing it as a generic 'option'). + + 7: Echo Reply + + A TCP that receives a TCP Echo option containing four + information bytes will return these same bytes in a TCP Echo + Reply option. This TCP Echo Reply option must be returned in + the next segment (e.g., an ACK segment) that is sent. If more + than one Echo option is received before a reply segment is + sent, the TCP must choose only one of the options to echo, + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 31] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + ignoring the others; specifically, it must choose the newest + segment with the oldest sequence number (see RFC 1072 [4]). + + The Echo Reply option is generally not used in practice -- it + is obsoleted by the Timestamp option. However, for + transparency it is desirable that a compression scheme be able + to transport it. (However, there is no benefit in attempting + any more sophisticated treatment than viewing it as a generic + 'option'). + + 8: Timestamps + + This option carries two four-byte timestamp fields. The + Timestamp Value field (TSval) contains the current value of the + timestamp clock of the TCP sending the option. The Timestamp + Echo Reply field (TSecr) is only valid if the ACK bit is set in + the TCP header; if it is valid, it echoes a timestamp value + that was sent by the remote TCP in the TSval field of a + Timestamps option. When TSecr is not valid, its value must be + zero. The TSecr value will generally be from the most recent + Timestamp option that was received; however, there are + exceptions that are explained below. A TCP may send the + Timestamps option (TSopt) in an initial segment (i.e., a + segment containing a SYN bit and no ACK bit), and it may send a + TSopt in other segments only if it received a TSopt in the + initial segment for the connection (see RFC 1323 [7]). + Timestamps are quite commonly used. If timestamp options are + exchanged in the connection set-up phase, then they are + expected to appear on all subsequent segments. If this + exchange does not happen, then they will not appear for the + remainder of the flow. + + Because the value being carried is a timestamp, it is logical + to expect that the entire value need not be carried. There is + no obvious pattern of increments that might be expected, + however. + + An important reason for using the timestamp option is to allow + detection of sequence space wrap-around (Protection Against + Wrapped Sequence-number, or PAWS, see RFC 1323 [7]). It is not + expected that this is a serious concern on the links on which + TCP header compression would be deployed, but it is important + that the integrity of this option be maintained. This issue is + discussed in, for example, RFC 3150 [32]. However, the + proposed Eifel algorithm [35] makes use of timestamps, so it is + currently recommended that timestamps be used for cellular-type + links [34]. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + With regard to compression, note that the range of resolutions + for the timestamp suggested in RFC 1323 [7] is quite wide (1ms + to 1s per 'tick'). This (along with the perhaps wide variation + in RTT) makes it hard to select a set of encodings that will be + optimal in all cases. + + 9: Partial Order Connection (POC) permitted + + This option represents a simple indicator communicated between + the two peer transport entities to establish the operation of + the POC protocol. See RFC 1693 [9]. + + The Partial Order Connection option sees little (or no) use in + the current Internet, so the only requirement is that the + header compression scheme be able to encode it. + + 10: POC service profile + + This option serves to communicate the information necessary to + carry out the job of the protocol -- the type of information + that is typically found in the header of a TCP segment. The + Partial Order Connection option sees little (or no) use in the + current Internet, so the only requirement is that the header + compression scheme be able to encode it. + + 11: Connection Count (CC) + + This option is part of the implementation of TCP Accelerated + Open (TAO) that effectively bypasses the TCP Three-Way + Handshake (3WHS). TAO introduces a 32-bit incarnation number, + called a "connection count" (CC), that is carried in a TCP + option in each segment. A distinct CC value is assigned to + each direction of an open connection. The implementation + assigns monotonically increasing CC values to successive + connections that it opens actively or passively (see RFC 1644 + [8]). This option sees little (or no) use in the current + Internet, so the only requirement is that the header + compression scheme be able to encode it. + + 12: CC.NEW + + Correctness of the TAO mechanism requires that clients generate + monotonically increasing CC values for successive connection + initiations. Receiving a CC.NEW causes the server to + invalidate its cache entry and to do a 3WHS. See RFC 1644 [8]. + This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet, so + the only requirement is that the header compression scheme be + able to encode it. + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 33] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + 13: CC.ECHO + + When a server host sends a segment, it echoes the connection + count from the initial in a CC.ECHO option, which is used by + the client host to validate the segment (see RFC 1644 [8]). + This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet, so + the only requirement is that the header compression scheme be + able to encode it. + + 14: Alternate Checksum Request + + This option may be sent in a SYN segment by a TCP to indicate + that the TCP is prepared to both generate and receive checksums + based on an alternate algorithm. During communication, the + alternate checksum replaces the regular TCP checksum in the + checksum field of the TCP header. Should the alternate + checksum require more than 2 octets to transmit, either the + checksum may be moved into a TCP Alternate Checksum Data Option + and the checksum field of the TCP header be sent as zero, or + the data may be split between the header field and the option. + Alternate checksums are computed over the same data as the + regular TCP checksum; see RFC 1146 [5]. + + This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet, so + the only requirement is that the header compression scheme be + able to encode it. It would only occur in connection set-up + (SYN) packets. Even if this option were used, it would not + affect the handling of the checksum, since this should be + carried transparently in any case. + + 15: Alternate Checksum Data + + This field is used only when the alternate checksum that is + negotiated is longer than 16 bits. These checksums will not + fit in the checksum field of the TCP header and thus at least + part of them must be put in an option. Whether the checksum is + split between the checksum field in the TCP header and the + option or the entire checksum is placed in the option is + determined on a checksum-by-checksum basis. The length of this + option will depend on the choice of alternate checksum + algorithm for this connection; see RFC 1146 [5]. + + If an alternative checksum was negotiated in the connection + set-up, then this option may appear on all subsequent packets + (if needed to carry the checksum data). However, this option + is in practice never seen, so the only requirement is that the + header compression scheme be able to encode it. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 34] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + 16 - 18: + + These non-RFC option types are not considered in this document. + + 19: MD5 Digest + + Every segment sent on a TCP connection to be protected against + spoofing will contain the 16-byte MD5 digest produced by + applying the MD5 algorithm to a concatenated block of data + [13]. + + Upon receiving a signed segment, the receiver must validate it + by calculating its own digest from the same data (using its own + key) and comparing the two digests. A failing comparison must + result in the segment's being dropped and must not produce any + response back to the sender. Logging the failure is probably + advisable. + + Unlike other TCP extensions (e.g., the Window Scale option + [7]), the absence of the option in the SYN-ACK segment must not + cause the sender to disable its sending of signatures. This + negotiation is typically done to prevent some TCP + implementations from misbehaving upon receiving options in non- + SYN segments. This is not a problem for this option, since the + SYN-ACK sent during connection negotiation will not be signed + and will thus be ignored. The connection will never be made, + and non-SYN segments with options will never be sent. More + importantly, the sending of signatures must be under the + complete control of the application, not at the mercy of a + remote host not understanding the option. MD5 digest + information should, like any cryptographically secure data, be + incompressible. Therefore the compression scheme must simply + transparently carry this option, if it occurs. + + 20 - 26; + + Thse non-RFC option types are not considered in this document. + This only means that their behavior is not described in detail, + as a compression scheme is not expected to be optimised for + these options. However, any unrecognised option must be + carried by a TCP compression scheme transparently, in order to + work efficiently in the presence of new or rare options. + + The above list covers options known at the time of writing. Other + options are expected to be defined. It is important that any future + options can be handled by a header compression scheme. The + processing of as-yet undefined options cannot be optimised but, at + the very least, unknown options should be carried transparently. + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 35] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + The current model for TCP options is that an option is negotiated in + the SYN exchange and used thereafter, if the negotiation succeeds. + This leads to some assumptions about the presence of options (being + only on packets with the SYN flag set, or appearing on every packet, + for example). Where such assumptions hold true, it may be possible + to optimise compression of options slightly. However, it is seen as + undesirable to be so constrained, as there is no guarantee that + option handling and negotiation will remain the same in the future. + Also note that a compressor may not process the SYN packets of a flow + and cannot, therefore, be assumed to know which options have been + negotiated. + +5. Other Observations + +5.1. Implicit Acknowledgements + + There may be a small number of cues for 'implicit acknowledgements' + in a TCP flow. Even if the compressor only sees the data transfer + direction, for example, seeing a packet without the SYN flag set + implies that the SYN packet has been received. + + There is a clear requirement for the deployment of compression to be + topologically independent. This means that it is not actually + possible to be sure that seeing a data packet at the compressor + guarantees that the SYN packet has been correctly received by the + decompressor (as the SYN packet may have taken an alternative path). + + However, there may be other such cues, which may be used in certain + circumstances to improve compression efficiency. + +5.2. Shared Data + + It can be seen that there are two distinct deployments (i) where the + forward (data) and reverse (ACK) path are both carried over a common + link, and (ii) where the forward (data) and reverse (ACK) path are + carried over different paths, with a specific link carrying packets + corresponding to only one direction of communication. + + In the former case, a compressor and decompressor could be colocated. + It may then be possible for the compressor and decompressor at each + end of the link to exchange information. This could lead to possible + optimizations. + + For example, acknowledgement numbers are generally taken from the + sequence numbers in the opposite direction. Since an acknowledgement + cannot be generated for a packet that has not passed across the link, + this offers an efficient way of encoding acknowledgements. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 36] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +5.3. TCP Header Overhead + + For a TCP bulk data-transfer, the overhead of the TCP header does not + form a large proportion of the data packet (e.g., < 3% for a 1460 + octet packet), particularly compared to the typical RTP voice case. + Spectral efficiency is clearly an important goal. However, + extracting every last bit of compression gain offers only marginal + benefit at a considerable cost in complexity. This trade-off, of + efficiency and complexity, must be addressed in the design of a TCP + compression profile. + + However, in the acknowledgement direction (i.e., for 'pure' + acknowledgement headers), the overhead could be said to be infinite + (since there is no data being carried). This is why optimizations + for the acknowledgement path may be considered useful. + + There are a number of schemes for manipulating TCP acknowledgements + to reduce the ACK bandwidth. Many of these are documented in [33] + and [32]. Most of these schemes are entirely compatible with header + compression, without requiring any particular support. While it is + not expected that a compression scheme will be optimised for + experimental options, it is useful to consider these when developing + header compression schemes, and vice versa. A header compression + scheme must be able to support any option (including ones as yet + undefined). + +5.4. Field Independence and Packet Behavior + + It should be apparent that direct comparisons with the highly + 'packet'-based view of RTP compression are hard. RTP header fields + tend to change regularly per-packet, and many fields (IPv4 IP ID, RTP + sequence number, and RTP timestamp, for example) typically change in + a dependent manner. However, TCP fields, such as sequence number + tend to change more unpredictably, partly because of the influence of + external factors (size of TCP windows, application behavior, etc.). + Also, the field values tend to change independently. Overall, this + makes compression more challenging and makes it harder to select a + set of encodings that can successfully trade off efficiency and + robustness. + +5.5. Short-Lived Flows + + It is hard to see what can be done to improve performance for a + single, unpredictable, short-lived connection. However, there are + commonly cases where there will be multiple TCP connections between + the same pair of hosts. As a particular example, consider web + browsing (this is more the case with HTTP/1.0 [25] than with HTTP/1.1 + [26]). + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 37] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + When a connection closes, either it is the last connection between + that pair of hosts or it is likely that another connection will open + within a relatively short space of time. In this case, the IP header + part of the context (i.e., those fields characterised in Section 2.1) + will probably be almost identical. Certain aspects of the TCP + context may also be similar. + + Support for context replication is discussed in more detail in + Section 3. Overall, support for sub-context sharing or initializing + one context from another offers useful optimizations for a sequence + of short-lived connections. + + Note that, although TCP is connection oriented, it is hard for a + compressor to tell whether a TCP flow has finished. For example, + even in the 'bi-directional' link case, seeing a FIN and the ACK of + the FIN at the compressor/decompressor does not mean that the FIN + cannot be retransmitted. Thus, it may be more useful to think about + initializing a new context from an existing one, rather than re-using + an existing one. + + As mentioned previously in Section 4.1.3, the IP header can clearly + be shared between any transport-layer flows between the same two + end-points. There may be limited scope for initialisation of a new + TCP header from an existing one. The port numbers are the most + obvious starting point. + +5.6. Master Sequence Number + + As pointed out earlier, in Section 4.1.3, there is no obvious + candidate for a 'master sequence number' in TCP. Moreover, it is + noted that such a master sequence number is only required to allow a + decompressor to acknowledge packets in bi-directional mode. It can + also be seen that such a sequence number would not be required for + every packet. + + While the sequence number only needs to be 'sparse', it is clear that + there is a requirement for an explicitly added sequence number. + There are no obvious ways to guarantee the unique identity of a + packet other than by adding such a sequence number (sequence and + acknowledgement numbers can both remain the same, for example). + +5.7. Size Constraint for TCP Options + + As can be seen from the above analysis, most TCP options, such as + MSS, WSopt, or SACK-Permitted, may appear only on a SYN segment. + Every implementation should (and we expect that most will) ignore + unknown options on SYN segments. TCP options will be sent on non-SYN + segments only when an exchange of options on the SYN segments has + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 38] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + indicated that both sides understand the extension. Other TCP + options, such as MD5 Digest or Timestamp, also tend to be sent when + the connection is initiated (i.e., in the SYN packet). + + The total header size is also an issue. The TCP header specifies + where segment data starts with a 4-bit field that gives the total + size of the header (including options) in 32-bit words. This means + that the total size of the header plus option must be less than or + equal to 60 bytes. This leaves 40 bytes for options. + +6. Security Considerations + + Since this document only describes TCP field behavior, it raises no + direct security concerns. + + This memo is intended to be used to aid the compression of TCP/IP + headers. Where authentication mechanisms such as IPsec AH [24] are + used, it is important that compression be transparent. Where + encryption methods such as IPsec ESP [27] are used, the TCP fields + may not be visible, preventing compression. + +7. Acknowledgements + + Many IP and TCP RFCs (hopefully all of which have been collated + below), together with header compression schemes from RFC 1144 [22], + RFC 3544 [36], and RFC 3095 [31], and of course the detailed analysis + of RTP/UDP/IP in RFC 3095, have been sources of ideas and knowledge. + Further background information can also be found in [28] and [29]. + + This document also benefited from discussion on the ROHC mailing list + and in various corridors (virtual or otherwise) about many key + issues; special thanks go to Qian Zhang, Carsten Bormann, and Gorry + Fairhurst. + + Qian Zhang and Hongbin Liao contributed the extensive analysis of + shareable header fields. + + Any remaining misrepresentation or misinterpretation of information + is entirely the fault of the authors. + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 39] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September + 1981. + + [2] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, + September 1981. + + [3] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", RFC + 896, January 1984. + + [4] Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay + paths", RFC 1072, October 1988. + + [5] Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options", + RFC 1146, March 1990. + + [6] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, + November 1990. + + [7] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for + High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992. + + [8] Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions + Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994. + + [9] Connolly, T., Amer, P., and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP: + Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994. + + [10] Bellovin, S., "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks", RFC + 1948, May 1996. + + [11] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for + IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. + + [12] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP + Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996. + + [13] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 + Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998. + + [14] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of + the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and + IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 40] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + [15] Ramakrishnan, K. and S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit + Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January 1999. + + [16] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion + Control", RFC 2581, April 1999. + + [17] Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M., and M. Podolsky, "An + Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for + TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000. + + [18] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of + Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, + September 2001. + + [19] Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit + Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces", RFC + 3540, June 2003. + +8.2. Informative References + + [20] IANA, "IANA", IANA TCP options, February 1998, + <http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters>. + + [21] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication + Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. + + [22] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial + links", RFC 1144, February 1990. + + [23] Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite", + RFC 1349, July 1992. + + [24] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402, + November 1998. + + [25] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext + Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996. + + [27] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload + (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. + + [26] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., and T. + Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC + 2068, January 1997. + + [28] Degermark, M., Nordgren, B., and S. Pink, "IP Header + Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999. + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 41] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + + [29] Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for + Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February 1999. + + [30] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For + Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, + RFC 2780, March 2000. + + [31] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., + Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., + Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T., + Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): + Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", + RFC 3095, July 2001. + + [32] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., and V. Magret, "End-to- + end Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48, RFC 3150, + July 2001. + + [33] Balakrishnan, Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M. + Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path + Asymmetry", RFC 3449, December 2002. + + [34] Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A., and F. + Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation + Wireless Networks", RFC 3481, February 2003. + + [35] Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for + TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003. + + [36] Engan, M., Casner, S., Bormann, C., and T. Koren, "IP Header + Compression over PPP", RFC 3544, July 2003. + + [37] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., Ludwig, R., + Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. Wood, "Advice + for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, RFC 3819, July + 2004. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 42] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Mark A. West + Siemens/Roke Manor Research + Roke Manor Research Ltd. + Romsey, Hants SO51 0ZN + UK + + Phone: +44 (0)1794 833311 + EMail: mark.a.west@roke.co.uk + URI: http://www.roke.co.uk + + + Stephen McCann + Siemens/Roke Manor Research + Roke Manor Research Ltd. + Romsey, Hants SO51 0ZN + UK + + Phone: +44 (0)1794 833341 + EMail: stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk + URI: http://www.roke.co.uk + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 43] + +RFC 4413 TCP/IP Field Behavior March 2006 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + + 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 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 + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + + + +West & McCann Informational [Page 44] + |