分享
 
 
 

RFC2393 - IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group A. Shacham

Request for Comments: 2393 Cisco

Category: Standards Track R. Monsour

Hi/fn

R. Pereira

TimeStep

M. Thomas

AltaVista Internet

December 1998

IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document describes a protocol intended to provide lossless

compression for Internet Protocol datagrams in an Internet

environment.

1. IntrodUCtion

IP payload compression is a protocol to reduce the size of IP

datagrams. This protocol will increase the overall communication

performance between a pair of communicating hosts/gateways ("nodes")

by compressing the datagrams, provided the nodes have sufficient

computation power, through either CPU capacity or a compression

coprocessor, and the communication is over slow or congested links.

IP payload compression is especially useful when encryption is

applied to IP datagrams. Encrypting the IP datagram causes the data

to be random in nature, rendering compression at lower protocol

layers (e.g., PPP Compression Control Protocol [RFC-1962])

ineffective. If both compression and encryption are required,

compression MUST be applied before encryption.

This document defines the IP payload compression protocol (IPComp),

the IPComp packet structure, the IPComp Association (IPCA), and

several methods to negotiate the IPCA.

Other documents shall specify how a specific compression algorithm

can be used with the IP payload compression protocol. Such

algorithms are beyond the scope of this document.

1.1. Specification of Requirements

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC-2119].

2. Compression Process

The compression processing of IP datagrams has two phases:

compressing of outbound IP datagrams ("compression") and

decompressing of inbound datagrams ("decompression"). The

compression processing MUST be lossless, ensuring that the IP

datagram, after being compressed and decompressed, is identical to

the original IP datagram.

Each IP datagram is compressed and decompressed by itself without any

relation to other datagrams ("stateless compression"), as IP

datagrams may arrive out of order or not arrive at all. Each

compressed IP datagram encapsulates a single IP payload.

Processing of inbound IP datagrams MUST support both compressed and

non-compressed IP datagrams, in order to meet the non-eXPansion

policy requirements, as defined in section 2.2.

The compression of outbound IP datagrams MUST be done before any IP

security processing, such as encryption and authentication, and

before any fragmentation of the IP datagram. In addition, in IP

version 6 [RFC-2460], the compression of outbound IP datagrams MUST

be done before the addition of either a Hop-by-Hop Options header or

a Routing Header, since both carry information that must be examined

and processed by possibly every node along a packet's delivery path,

and therefore MUST be sent in the original form.

Similarly, the decompression of inbound IP datagrams MUST be done

after the reassembly of the IP datagrams, and after the completion of

all IP security processing, such as authentication and decryption.

2.1. Compressed Payload

The compression is applied to a single array of octets, which are

contiguous in the IP datagram. This array of octets always ends at

the last octet of the IP packet payload. Note: a contiguous array of

octets in the IP datagram may be not contiguous in physical memory.

In IP version 4 [RFC-0791], the compression is applied to the upper

layer protocol (ULP) payload of the IP datagram. No portion of the

IP header or the IP header options is compressed.

In the IPv6 context, IPComp is viewed as an end-to-end payload, and

MUST not apply to hop-by-hop, routing, and fragmentation extension

headers. The compression is applied starting at the first IP Header

Option field that does not carry information that must be examined

and processed by nodes along a packet's delivery path, if such IP

Header Option field exists, and continues to the ULP payload of the

IP datagram.

The size of a compressed payload, generated by the compression

algorithm, MUST be in whole octet units.

As defined in section 3, an IPComp header is inserted immediately

preceding the compressed payload. The original IP header is modified

to indicate the usage of the IPComp protocol and the reduced size of

the IP datagram. The original content of the Next Header (IPv6) or

protocol (IPv4) field is stored in the IPComp header.

The decompression is applied to a single contiguous array of octets

in the IP datagram. The start of the array of octets immediately

follows the IPComp header and ends at the last octet of the IP

payload. If the decompression process is successfully completed, the

IP header is modified to indicate the size of the decompressed IP

datagram, and the original next header as stored in the IPComp

header. The IPComp header is removed from the IP datagram and the

decompressed payload immediately follows the IP header.

2.2. Non-Expansion Policy

If the total size of a compressed ULP payload and the IPComp header,

as defined in section 3, is not smaller than the size of the original

ULP payload, the IP datagram MUST be sent in the original non-

compressed form. To clarify: If an IP datagram is sent non-

compressed, no IPComp header is added to the datagram. This policy

ensures saving the decompression processing cycles and avoiding

incurring IP datagram fragmentation when the expanded datagram is

larger than MTU.

Small IP datagrams are likely to expand as a result of compression.

Therefore, a numeric threshold should be applied before compression,

where IP datagrams of size smaller than the threshold are sent in the

original form without attempting compression. The numeric threshold

is implementation dependent.

An IP datagram with payload that has been previously compressed tends

not to compress any further. The previously compressed payload may

be the result of external processes, such as compression applied by

an upper layer in the communication stack, or by an off-line

compression utility. An adaptive algorithm should be implemented to

avoid the performance hit. For example, if the compression of i

consecutive IP datagrams of an IPCA fails, the next k IP datagrams

are sent without attempting compression. If the next j datagrams are

also failing to compress, the next k+n datagrams are sent without

attempting compression. Once a datagram is compressed successfully,

the normal process of IPComp restarts. Such an adaptive algorithm,

including all the related thresholds, is implementation dependent.

During the processing of the payload, the compression algorithm MAY

periodically apply a test to determine the compressibility of the

processed data, similar to the requirements of [V42BIS]. The nature

of the test is algorithm dependent. Once the compression algorithm

detects that the data is non-compressible, the algorithm SHOULD stop

processing the data, and the payload is sent in the original non-

compressed form.

3. Compressed IP Datagram Header Structure

A compressed IP datagram is encapsulated by modifying the IP header

and inserting an IPComp header immediately preceding the compressed

payload. This section defines the IP header modifications both in

IPv4 and IPv6, and the structure of the IPComp header.

3.1. IPv4 Header Modifications

The following IPv4 header fields are set before transmitting the

compressed IP datagram:

Total Length

The length of the entire encapsulated IP datagram, including

the IP header, the IPComp header and the compressed payload.

Protocol

The Protocol field is set to 108, IPComp Datagram, [RFC-1700].

Header Checksum

The Internet Header checksum [RFC-0791] of the IP header.

All other IPv4 header fields are kept unchanged, including any header

options.

3.2. IPv6 Header Modifications

The following IPv6 header fields are set before transmitting the

compressed IP datagram:

Payload Length

The length of the compressed IP payload.

Next Header

The Next Header field is set to 108, IPComp Datagram, [RFC-

1700].

All other IPv6 header fields are kept unchanged, including any non-

compressed header options.

The IPComp header is placed in an IPv6 packet using the same rules as

the IPv6 Fragment Header. However if an IPv6 packet contains both an

IPv6 Fragment Header and an IPComp header, the IPv6 Fragment Header

MUST precede the IPComp header in the packet.

3.3. IPComp Header Structure

The four-octet header has the following structure:

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Next Header Flags Compression Parameter Index

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Next Header

8-bit selector. Stores the IPv4 Protocol field or the IPv6 Next

Header field of the original IP header.

Flags

8-bit field. Reserved for future use. MUST be set to zero.

MUST be ignored by the receiving node.

Compression Parameter Index (CPI)

16-bit index. The CPI is stored in network order. The values

0-63 define well-known compression algorithms, which require no

additional information, and are used for manual setup. The

values themselves are identical to IPCOMP Transform identifiers

as defined in [SECDOI]. Consult [SECDOI] for an initial set of

defined values and for instructions on how to assign new values.

The values 64-255 are reserved for future use. The values

256-61439 are negotiated between the two nodes in definition of

an IPComp Association, as defined in section 4. Note: When

negotiating one of the well-known algorithms, the nodes MAY

select a CPI in the pre-defined range 0-63. The values

61440-65535 are for private use among mutually consenting

parties. Both nodes participating can select a CPI value

independently of each other and there is no relationships

between the two separately chosen CPIs. The outbound IPComp

header MUST use the CPI value chosen by the decompressing node.

The CPI in combination with the destination IP address uniquely

identifies the compression algorithm characteristics for the

datagram.

4. IPComp Association (IPCA) Negotiation

To utilize the IPComp protocol, two nodes MUST first establish an

IPComp Association (IPCA) between them. The IPCA includes all

required information for the operation of IPComp, including the

Compression Parameter Index (CPI), the mode of operation, the

compression algorithm to be used, and any required parameter for the

selected compression algorithm. The IPComp mode of operation is

either a node-to-node policy where IPComp is applied to every IP

packet between the nodes, or an ULP session based policy where only

selected ULP sessions between the nodes are using IPComp. For each

IPCA, a different compression algorithm may be negotiated in each

direction, or only one direction may be compressed. The default is

"no IPComp compression".

The IPCA is established by dynamic negotiations or by manual

configuration. The dynamic negotiations SHOULD use the Internet

Security Association and Key Management Protocol [ISAKMP], where

IPSec is present. The dynamic negotiations MAY be implemented

through a different protocol.

4.1. Use of ISAKMP

For IPComp in the context of IP Security, ISAKMP provides the

necessary mechanisms to establish IPCA. IPComp Association is

negotiated by the initiator using a Proposal Payload, which would

include one or more Transform Payloads. The Proposal Payload would

specify a compression protocol in the protocol id field and each

Transform Payload would contain the specific compression method(s)

being offered to the responder.

In the Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation (DOI), IPComp is

negotiated as the Protocol ID PROTO_IPCOMP. The compression

algorithm is negotiated as one of the defined IPCOMP Transform

Identifiers.

4.2. Use of Non-ISAKMP Protocol

The dynamic negotiations MAY be implemented through a protocol other

than ISAKMP. Such protocol is beyond the scope of this document.

4.3. Manual Configuration

Nodes may establish IPComp Associations using manual configuration.

For this method, a limited number of Compression Parameters Indexes

(CPIs) is designated to represent a list of specific compression

methods.

5. Security Considerations

When IPComp is used in the context of IPSec, it is believed not to

have an effect on the underlying security functionality provided by

the IPSec protocol; i.e., the use of compression is not known to

degrade or alter the nature of the underlying security architecture

or the encryption technologies used to implement it.

When IPComp is used without IPSec, IP payload compression potentially

reduces the security of the Internet, similar to the effects of IP

encapsulation [RFC-2003]. For example, IPComp may make it difficult

for border routers to filter datagrams based on header fields. In

particular, the original value of the Protocol field in the IP header

is not located in its normal positions within the datagram, and any

transport layer header fields within the datagram, such as port

numbers, are neither located in their normal positions within the

datagram nor presented in their original values after compression. A

filtering border router can filter the datagram only if it shares the

IPComp Association used for the compression. To allow this sort of

compression in environments in which all packets need to be filtered

(or at least accounted for), a mechanism must be in place for the

receiving node to securely communicate the IPComp Association to the

border router. This might, more rarely, also apply to the IPComp

Association used for outgoing datagrams.

6. References

[RFC-0791] Postel, J., Editor, "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC791,

September 1981.

[RFC-1700] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,

RFC1700, October 1994. Or see:

http://www.iana.org/numbers.Html

[RFC-2460] Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6

(IPv6) Specification", RFC2460, December 1998.

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

RFC1962, June 1996.

[RFC-2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC2003,

October 1996.

[RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[ISAKMP] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and J. Turner,

"Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol

(ISAKMP)", RFC2408, November 1998.

[SECDOI] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of

Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC2407, November 1998.

[V42BIS] CCITT, "Data Compression Procedures for Data Circuit

Terminating Equipment (DCE) Using Error Correction

Procedures", Recommendation V.42 bis, January 1990.

Authors' Addresses

Abraham Shacham

Cisco Systems

170 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, California 95134

United States of America

EMail: shacham@cisco.com

Robert Monsour

Hi/fn Inc.

2105 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 230

San Jose, California 95125

United States of America

EMail: rmonsour@hifn.com

Roy Pereira

TimeStep Corporation

362 Terry Fox Drive

Kanata, Ontario K2K 2P5

Canada

EMail: rpereira@timestep.com

Matt Thomas

AltaVista Internet Software

30 Porter Road

Littleton, Massachusetts 01460

United States of America

EMail: matt.thomas@altavista-software.com

Working Group

The IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPPCP) working group can be

contacted through its chair:

Naganand Dorswamy

Bay Networks

EMail: naganand@baynetworks.com

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有