diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1377.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1377.txt | 563 |
1 files changed, 563 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1377.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1377.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6dbd101 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1377.txt @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group D. Katz +Request for Comments: 1377 cisco + November 1992 + + + The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP) + +Status of this Memo + + This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet + community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. + Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol + Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol. + Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method of + encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over point-to-point + links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and + proposes a family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for + establishing and configuring different network-layer protocols. + + This document defines the NCP for establishing and configuring OSI + Network Layer Protocols. + + This memo is the product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group + of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments on this memo + should be submitted to the ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu mailing list. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction .......................................... 2 + 1.1 OSI Network Layer Protocols over PPP .................. 2 + 2. A PPP Network Control Protocol (NCP) for OSI .......... 5 + 2.1 Sending OSI NPDUs ..................................... 6 + 2.2 NPDU Alignment ........................................ 6 + 2.3 Network Layer Addressing Information .................. 6 + 3. OSINLCP Configuration Options ......................... 7 + 3.1 Align-NPDU ............................................ 7 + REFERENCES ................................................... 9 + ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 9 + SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 10 + CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 10 + AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 10 + + + + + + +Katz [Page 1] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + +1. Introduction + + PPP has three main components: + + 1. A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links. + + 2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring, + and testing the data-link connection. + + 3. A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing + and configuring different network-layer protocols. + + In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each + end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test + the data link. After the link has been established and optional + facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send + NCP packets to choose and configure one or more network-layer + protocols. Once each of the chosen network-layer protocols has been + configured, datagrams from each network-layer protocol can be sent + over the link. + + The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP + or NCP packets close the link down, or until some external event + occurs (an inactivity timer expires or network administrator + intervention). + +1.1. OSI Network Layer Protocols over PPP + + A number of protocols have been defined for the Network Layer of OSI, + including the Connectionless Network Layer Protocol (CLNP, ISO 8473) + [3], the End System to Intermediate System routing protocol (ES-IS, + ISO 9542) [4], the Intermediate System to Intermediate System routing + protocol (IS-IS, ISO 10589) [5], and the Inter-Domain Routeing + Protocol (IDRP, CD 10747) [6]. Generally, these protocols were + designed to run over non-reliable data link protocols such as PPP. + + Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID) + + OSI Network Layer protocols can be discriminated according to the + first octet in each Network Protocol Data Unit (NPDU, that is, + packet), known as the Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID), + which is defined in ISO/TR 9577 [7]. This allows the various + protocols to be run over a common data link without any + discriminator below the network layer. + + + + + + + +Katz [Page 2] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + Inactive Network Layer Protocol + + ISO/TR 9577 reserves a NLPID value of zero to represent the + "Inactive Network Layer Protocol", as defined in ISO 8473. The + inactive network layer protocol MUST NOT be used over PPP. This + assures that whichever OSI network layer protocol is used will + have a non-zero NLPID value. + + Connection-Oriented Network Protocol + + The OSI Connection-Oriented Network Protocol (ISO 8208) [8], + effectively the Packet Layer of CCITT X.25, is intended to be run + over a reliable data link, such as IEEE 802.2 type II or LAPB. + Therefore, the unreliable data link service provided by PPP is not + appropriate for use with ISO 8208. + + ConnectionLess Network Protocol (CLNP) + + The ConnectionLess Network Protocol offers a simple non-reliable + datagram service very similar to IP, and is designed to run over a + non-reliable data link service, such as provided by PPP. + + End-System to Intermediate-System Protocol (ES-IS) + + ES Hellos and IS Hellos are retransmitted on a periodic timer- + driven basis (based on expiration of the "Configuration Timer"). + The resulting ES and IS configuration information is invalidated + on a timer driven basis, based on expiration of the "Holding + Timer" for each piece of information. The value of a Holding + Timer is set by the source of the information, and transmitted in + the Holding Time field of the appropriate ES-IS packet. ISO 9542 + recommends that the holding time field is set to approximately + twice the Configuration Timer parameter, such that even if every + other Hello packet is lost the configuration information will be + retained (implying that the Holding Timer is actually set to + slightly more than twice the Configuration Timer). + + Generally, the recommendation in ISO 9542 is sufficient for PPP + links. For very unreliable links, it may be necessary to set the + Holding Timer to be slightly more than three times the + Configuration Timer to ensure that loss of configuration + information is an unusual event. + + Redirect information is not transmitted on point-to-point links, + but may be transmitted on general topology subnetworks, which in + turn may make use of PPP. Redirect information is sent on a + event-driven basis (based on a CLNP packet being forwarded by a + router out the incoming interface), but redirect information is + + + +Katz [Page 3] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + invalidated on a timer-driven basis. Loss of a single redirect + may result in a subsequent data packet being sent to the same + incorrect router, which will re-issue the redirect. This operates + in the same manner as ICMP redirects for IP packets, and does not + pose any problem for operation over PPP links. + + Intermediate-System to Intermediate-System Protocol (IS-IS) + + IS-IS allows for broadcast links (typically LANs), point-to-point + links (such as PPP), and general topology links (such as X.25 + networks) which are modelled as a collection of point-to-point + links. + + There are four types of IS-IS packets: IS-IS Hello Packets, Link + State Packets (LSPs), Complete Sequence Number Packets (CSNPs), + and Partial Sequence Number Packets (PSNPs). + + IS-IS Hello messages are transmitted periodically on point-to- + point links (based on expiration of the "ISISHello" timer). + Routers expect to receive IS-IS Hello packets periodically. + Specifically, the IS-IS Hello packet specifies a "Holding Time". + If no subsequent IS-IS Hello is received over the corresponding + link for the specified time period, then the neighboring router is + assumed to have been disconnected or to be down. It is highly + undesireable for links to "flap" up and down unnecessarily, which + implies that the holding time needs to be large enough that a link + is very unlikely to be declared down due to a failure to receive + an IS-IS Hello. This implies that running IS-IS over unreliable + data links requires the Holding time to be greater than "k" times + the ISISHello timer, where k is chosen such that the loss of k + consecutive IS-IS Hello's is rare. If the quality of the link is + poor, then the Holding Time will need to be increased or the + "ISISHello" time decreased. + + LSPs are acknowledged by the IS-IS protocol (via use of partial + sequence number packets). A lost LSP will be recovered from with + no problem provided that PPP links are treated the same way as + other point-to-point links. On those rare occasions where a + partial sequence number packet is lost, this might result in the + retransmission of a link state packet over a single link, but will + not impact the correct operation of the routing algorithm. + + CSNPs are sent upon link startup on a point-to-point link. This + does not need to be changed for PPP. If a CSNP fragment is lost + upon startup it is merely loss of an optimization -- LSPs that did + not need to be transmitted over the link will be transmitted. If + a periodic CSNP fragment is lost it merely means that detection of + low probability database corruption will take longer. + + + +Katz [Page 4] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + PSNPs function as ACKs. Loss of a PSNP may result in an + unnecessary retransmission of an LSP, but does not prevent correct + operation of the routing protocol. + + Inter-Domain Routeing Protocol (IDRP) + + IDRP expects to run over datagram links, but requires reliable + exchange of IDRP information. For this reason, IDRP contains + built-in reliability mechanisms which ensure that packets will be + received correctly. + +2. A PPP Network Control Protocol (NCP) for OSI + + The OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP) is responsible for + configuring, enabling, and disabling the OSI protocol modules on both + ends of the point-to-point link. OSINLCP uses the same packet + exchange machanism as the Link Control Protocol (LCP). OSINLCP + packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the Network-Layer + Protocol phase. OSINLCP packets received before this phase is + reached should be silently discarded. + + The OSI Network Layer Control Protocol is exactly the same as the + Link Control Protocol [1] with the following exceptions: + + Frame Modifications + + The packet may utilize any modifications to the basic frame format + which have been negotiated during the Link Establishment phase. + + Data Link Layer Protocol Field + + Exactly one OSINLCP packet is encapsulated in the Information + field of a PPP Data Link Layer frame where the Protocol field + indicates type hex 8023 (OSI Network Layer Control Protocol). + + Code field + + Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack, + Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request, Terminate-Ack + and Code-Reject) are used. Other Codes should be treated as + unrecognized and should result in Code-Rejects. + + Timeouts + + OSINLCP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the + Network-Layer Protocol phase. An implementation should be + prepared to wait for Authentication and Link Quality Determination + to finish before timing out waiting for a Configure-Ack or other + + + +Katz [Page 5] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + response. It is suggested that an implementation give up only + after user intervention or a configurable amount of time. + + Configuration Option Types + + OSINLCP has one Configuration Option, which is defined below. + +2.1. Sending OSI NPDUs + + Before any Network Protocol Data Units (NPDUs) may be communicated, + PPP must reach the Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the OSI Network + Layer Control Protocol must reach the Opened state. + + Exactly one OSI NPDU is encapsulated in the Information field of a + PPP Data Link Layer frame where the Protocol field indicates type hex + 0023 (OSI Network Layer). + + The maximum length of an OSI NPDU transmitted over a PPP link is the + same as the maximum length of the Information field of a PPP data + link layer frame. Larger NPDUs must be segmented as necessary. If a + system wishes to avoid segmentation and reassembly, it should use + transport layer mechanisms to discourage others from sending large + PDUs. + +2.2. NPDU Alignment + + OSI protocols have peculiar alignment problems due to the fact that + they are often encapsulated in data link protocols with odd-length + headers, while PPP defaults to even-length headers. A router + switching an OSI packet may find that the beginning of the packet + falls on an inconvenient memory boundary when the hardware used to + transmit the packet to its next hop requires a particular alignment. + This situation can be addressed by the use of leading zero padding. + + When sending, an implementation MAY insert one to three octets of + zero between the PPP header and the OSI NPDU. These zero octets + correspondingly reduce the maximum length of the NPDU that may be + transmitted. + + On reception, any such leading zero octets (if present) MUST be + removed. Regardless of whether leading zero padding is used, an + implementation MUST also be able to receive a PPP packet with any + arbitrary alignment of the NPDU. + +2.3. Network Layer Addressing Information + + OSINLCP does not define a separate configuration option for the + exchange of OSI Network Layer address information. Instead, the ES- + + + +Katz [Page 6] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + IS protocol, ISO 9542, should be used. This protocol provides a + mechanism for determining the Network Layer address(es) of the + neighbor on the link, as well as determining if the neighbor is an + End System or an Intermediate System. + + A draft addendum to ES-IS [9] is being defined in ISO to add support + for dynamic address assignment. This addendum has currently passed + the formal "Committee Draft" (CD) letter ballot. + +3. OSINLCP Configuration Options + + OSINLCP Configuration Options allow negotiatiation of desirable + Internet Protocol parameters. OSINLCP uses the same Configuration + Option format defined for LCP [1], with a separate set of Options. + + The most up-to-date values of the OSINLCP Option Type field are + specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2]. Current + values are assigned as follows: + + 1 Align-NPDU + +3.1. Align-NPDU + + Description + + This Configuration Option provides a way for the receiver to + negotiate a particular alignment of the OSI NPDU. Empirical + evidence suggests that the greatest time deficit for re-alignment + exists at the receiver. + + The alignment is accomplished through combination of PPP header + compression with leading zero padding (see above). It is + recommended that alignment be entirely through header compression + combinations whenever possible. For example, an alignment of 3 + could be achieved by combining uncompressed PPP Address and + Control fields (2 octets) with a compressed PPP Protocol field (1 + octet). + + This option is negotiated separately in each direction. A + receiver which does not need alignment MUST NOT request the + option. A sender which desires alignment prior to sending SHOULD + Configure-Nak with an appropriate value. + + Implementation Note: In a complex environment, there might be + several conflicting needs for alignment. It is recommended + that the receiver request alignment based on the needs of the + highest speed next hop link. Also, greater efficiency might be + obtained by negotiating upstream the values requested by + + + +Katz [Page 7] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + downstream PPP links, since those packets will not need a + change in alignment on transit. + + The alignment request is advisory, and failure to agree on an + alignment MUST NOT prevent the OSINLCP from reaching the Opened + state. By default, the alignment is done according to the needs + of the sender, and all receivers MUST be capable of accepting + packets with any alignment. + + Vernacular: If you don't like this option, you can refuse to + negotiate it, and you can send whatever alignment you want. + However, if you accept the peer's alignment option, then you + MUST transmit packets with the agreed alignment. + + A summary of the Align-NPDU Configuration Option format is shown + below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. + + 0 1 2 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Length | Alignment | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Type + + 1 + + Length + + 3 + + Alignment + + This field specifies the offset of the beginning of the OSI NPDU + relative to the beginning of the PPP packet header (not including + any leading Flag Sequences). + + A value of 1 through 4 requires an offset of that specific length, + modulo 4. For example, a value of 1 would require no padding when + the PPP Address, Control, and Protocol fields are compressed. One + octet of leading zero padding would be necessary when the PPP + header is full sized. + + A value of 255 requests an offset of an odd length (1 or 3). A + value of 254 requests an offset of an even length (2 or 4). If + the sender is not capable of dynamically varying the amount of + padding, it MUST NAK with one of the two specific values. + + + + +Katz [Page 8] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + +References + + [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", RFC 1331, + Daydreamer, May 1992. + + [2] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340, + USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992. + + [3] ISO, "Information processing systems -- Data communications -- + Protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network + service", ISO 8473, 1988. + + [4] ISO, "Information processing systems -- Telecommunications and + information exchange between systems -- End system to + Intermediate system Routeing exchange protocol for use in + conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless- + mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO 9542, 1988. + + [5] ISO, "Information processing systems -- Telecommunications and + information exchange between systems -- Intermediate system to + Intermediate system Intra-Domain routeing exchange protocol for + use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the + connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589, + 1990. + + [6] ISO, "Protocol for Exchange of Inter-domain Routeing + Information among Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of + ISO 8473 PDUs", ISO CD 10747, 1991. + + [7] ISO, "Information technology -- Telecommunications and + information exchange between systems -- Protocol identification + in the network layer", ISO/IEC TR9577:1990. + + [8] ISO, "Information processing systems -- Data communications -- + X.25 packet level protocol for Data terminal equipment", ISO + 8208, 1984. + + [9] Taylor, E., "Addendum to ISO 9542 (PDAM 1 - Dynamic Discovery + of OSI NSAP Addresses by End Systems)", SC6/N7248. + +Acknowledgments + + Some of the text in this document is taken from previous documents + produced by the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of the Internet + Engineering Task Force (IETF). + + Special thanks to Ross Callon (DEC), and Cyndi Jung (3Com), for + contributions of text and design suggestions based on implementation + + + +Katz [Page 9] + +RFC 1377 PPP OSINLCP November 1992 + + + experience. + + Thanks also to Bill Simpson for his editing and formatting efforts, + both for this document and for PPP in general. + +Security Considerations + + Security issues are not discussed in this memo. + +Chair's Address + + The working group can be contacted via the current chair: + + Brian Lloyd + Lloyd & Associates + 3420 Sudbury Road + Cameron Park, California 95682 + + Phone: (916) 676-1147 + EMail: brian@lloyd.com + +Author's Address + + Questions about this memo can also be directed to: + + Dave Katz + cisco Systems, Inc. + 1525 O'Brien Dr. + Menlo Park, CA 94025 + + Phone: (415) 688-8284 + EMail: dkatz@cisco.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Katz [Page 10] +
\ No newline at end of file |