分享
 
 
 

RFC3153 - PPP Multiplexing

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

Network Working Group R. Pazhyannur

Request for Comments: 3153 I. Ali

Category: Standards Track Motorola

C. Fox

Cisco Systems

August 2001

PPP Multiplexing

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 (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document describes a method to redUCe the PPP (Point-to-Point

Protocol) framing overhead used to transport small packets over slow

links.

1. Description

The method, PPP Multiplexing, sends multiple PPP encapsulated packets

in a single PPP frame. As a result, the PPP overhead per packet is

reduced. PPP encapsulation (for example with PPP in HDLC framing)

adds several bytes of overhead: a HDLC flag (at least one to separate

adjacent packets), the Address (0xFF) and Control (0x03) field bytes,

a two byte PPP Protocol ID, and the two byte CRC field. Even with

the Address and Control Fields negotiated off and the PPP Protocol ID

compressed, each PPP encapsulated frame will include four bytes of

overhead. When PPP frames are tunneled, as in L2TP [1], the L2TP

overhead per PPP frame is significant.

The key idea is to concatenate multiple PPP encapsulated frames into

a single PPP multiplexed frame by inserting a delimiter before the

beginning of each frame. The description of the delimiters is

provided in Subsection 1.1. The delimiters are used by the

demultiplexor to separate the PPP frames within the multiplexed

frame. Each PPP encapsulated frame within the multiplexed frame is

called a PPP subframe.

During the NCP negotiation phase of PPP, a receiver can offer to

receive multiplexed frames using the PPP Mux Control Protocol

(PPPMuxCP), as described in Section 2. Once PPPMuxCP has been

negotiated, the transmitter may choose which PPP frames to multiplex.

Frames should not be re-ordered by either the transmitter or receiver

regardless of whether they arrive as part of the PPP multiplexed

frame or by themselves.

The scheme proposed is similar to the concatenated framing option

[2]. The key differences are that PPP multiplexing is more efficient

and that it allows concatenation of variable sized frames. This is

unlike concatenated framing which restricts all frames to be of fixed

length.

As with any concatenation scheme, the implementer has to consider the

tradeoff between increased delay for multiplexing/demultiplexing and

reduced packet overhead as the length of the multiplexed frame

increases.

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 [7].

1.1. Payload Format

The format of the complete PPP frame along with multiple subframes

for PPP in HDLC-like framing [3] is shown in Figure 1. Note that

regardless of the order in which individual bits are transmitted,

i.e., LSB first or MSB first, the PFF bit will be seen to be the MSB

of a byte that contains both the PFF and the subframe length field.

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

+PL + + + +PL + + +

PPP/ +FXLen1 + PPP + + +FXLenN + PPP + +

HDLC +FT + Prot. +Info1+ ~ +FT + Prot. +InfoN+ CRC

Header+ + Field1+ + + +FieldN + +

(2-5) + (1-2 ) + (0-2) + + + (1-2) + (0-2) + + (2)

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

Figure 1. Multiplexing subframes in a PPP frame.

PPP Header:

The PPP header contains the PPP Protocol Field for a PPP

Multiplexed Frame (0x0059). The PPP header compression

options (ACFC and PFC) may be negotiated during LCP and

could thus affect the format of this header.

Length Field:

The length field consists of three subfields:

1. Protocol Field Flag (PFF):

The PFF refers to the most significant bit of the first byte of

each subframe. This one bit field indicates whether the PPP

Protocol ID of the subframe follows the subframe length field.

For the first subframe, the PFF bit could be set to zero if the

PPP protocol ID of the first subframe is equal to the default

PID value negotiated in PPPMuxCP. PFF = 1 indicates that the

protocol field is present (and follows the length field) for

this subframe. PFF = 0 indicates that the protocol field is

absent for this subframe. If PFF = 0 then the PPP Protocol ID

is the same as that of the preceding subframe with PFF = 1, or

it is equal to default PID value of the PPPMuxCP Option for the

first subframe. The transmitter is not obligated to remove the

PPP Protocol ID for any subframe.

2. Length Extension (LXT)

This one bit field indicates whether the length field is one

byte or two bytes long. If the LXT bit is set, then the length

field is two bytes long (a PFF bit, a length extension bit, and

14 bits of sub-frame length). If the LXT bit is cleared, then

the length field is one byte long (a PFF bit, a length

extension bit, and 6 bits of sub-frame length).

3. Sub-frame Length (LEN):

This is the length of the subframe in bytes not including the

length field. However, it does include the PPP Protocol ID if

present (i.e., if PFF = 1). If the length of the subframe is

less than 64 bytes (less than or equal to 63 bytes), LXT is set

to zero and the last six bits of the length field is the

subframe length. If the length of the subframe is greater than

63 bytes, LXT is set to one and the last 14 bits of the length

field is the length of the subframe. The maximum length of a

subframe is 16,383 bytes. PPP packets larger than 16,383 bytes

will need to be sent in their own PPP frame. A transmitter is

not required to multiplex all frames smaller than 16,383 bytes.

It may chose to only multiplex frames smaller than a

configurable size into a PPP multiplexed frame.

Protocol Field:

This field contains the Protocol Field value for the subframe.

This field is optional. If PFF = 1 for a subframe, the protocol

field is present in the subframe, otherwise it is inferred at the

receiver.

The receiver MUST support Protocol-Field-Compression (PFC) one or

two bytes long. The transmitter SHOULD compress PPP Protocol IDs

in this field that have an upper byte of zero (i.e., Protocol IDs

from 0x21 thru 0xFD). This Protocol Field Compression in each PPP

subframe is not related to the negotiation of PFC during LCP

negotiation which affects the length of PPP Multiplexed Frame

Protocol ID.

Information Field:

This field contains the actual packet being encapsulated. Any

frame may be included here with the exception of LCP Configure

Request, ACK, NAK and Reject frames and PPP Multiplexed frames.

If LCP is renegotiated then PPP Multiplexing MUST be disabled

until the PPP Mux Control Protocol is negotiated.

1.2 Transmitter procedure

A simple implementation of the transmitter is provided. During the

transmission of a multiplexed PPP frame, the transmitter has a state

variable, Last_PID, which is used to hold the most recent value of

protocol field in a subframe with PFF=1. At the start of the

multiplexing process, Last_PID is set equal to the default PID value

negotiated in PPPMuxCP. Also, a user configurable parameter, maximum

subframe length (MAX_SF_LEN), is used to determine the maximum size

of a PPP frame which can be multiplexed. The value of MAX_SF_LEN

should be less or equal to the minimum of MRU-2(maximum size of

length field) and 16,383 (14 bits).

After transmitting a PPP frame (multiplexed or not) on the channel,

the PPP multiplexing logic looks at the buffers that hold the PPP

frames to be transmitted. In case there are multiple frames, the PPP

multiplexing logic checks if the length of the first frame in the

buffer is less than or equal to MAX_SF_LEN bytes. If so, the

transmitter starts compiling a multiplexed PPP frame with the

protocol field value corresponding to PPP Multiplexed Frame (0x59).

For each subframe, the test for deciding to prepend the protocol

field to a subframe is to compare the protocol field value of the

subframe to Last_PID. If they are equal, PFF is set to 0 and the

protocol field is deleted. If not, PFF is set to 1, the protocol

field is included, after PFC, in the subframe and Last_PID is set to

the protocol field value of the current subframe. The stopping

criteria in the concatenation process are (i) when the length of the

next subframe is greater than MAX_SF_LEN bytes or (ii) the length of

the entire PPP frame by including the new subframe exceeds the

maximum receive unit (MRU) parameter negotiated during LCP [4], or

(iii) there are no more subframes to concatenate.

Implementers may choose additionally to implement using timers. In

such a case a timeout in addition to the conditions stated above is

used as a stopping criteria of the multiplexing process. Moreover,

it may be desirable to limit the maximum size of a multiplexed packet

to be considerably smaller than MRU for reasons of multiplexing

latency and packet error considerations.

1.3 Receiver procedure

If a multiplexed frame, i.e., a frame with Protocol field value equal

to PPP Multiplexed Frame (0x0059), is received, the frame is

demultiplexed in order using the following input demultiplexing

logic. Similar to a transmitter, the receiver has a state variable

called Last_rcvd_PID, which is the value of the protocol field in the

most recently demultiplexed subframe with PFF=1. Last_rcvd_PID is

initialized to default PID value negotiated by PPPMuxCP. If PFF=0

for a subframe, Last_rcvd_PID is appended to the beginning of the

subframe before handing the subframe, as determined by the length

field, to the PPP logic. If PFF=1 for a subframe, Last_rcvd_PID is

set to this value and the subframe, as determined by the length

field, is passed to PPP logic. The remainder of the frame is

returned to the demultiplexor. Each succeeding subframe is processed

similarly. This processing is complete when the remainder of the

frame is empty, or when the size field of a subframe exceeds the

amount of data remaining in a packet. In the latter case, there is

an error either in the length field of the last subframe or in the

length field of one of the previous subframes. In either case the

last subframe must be dropped by the demultiplexing logic.

It is illegal to put a multiplexed frame within a multiplexed frame.

2. PPP Network Control Protocol for PPP Multiplexing (PPPMuxCP)

A receiver will offer its ability to received multiplexed frames by

negotiating NCP for PPP multiplexing, PPPMuxCP. The protocol field

value for a PPPMuxCP frames is 0x8059. PPPMuxCP is similar to other

NCPs such as IPCP [6]. A transmitter may not send a multiplexed

frame unless the peer has offered to receive multiplexed frames.

Support of multiplexed frame reception is negotiated in each

direction independently. Successful negotiation of PPPMuxCP does not

obligate a peer to transmit multiplexed frames.

As part of the PPPMuxCP negotiation, a 'default PID' option is always

negotiated. This enables the transmitter to transmit the first

subframe of a PPP multiplexed frame without a PID (PFF=0), thus

resulting in a saving of one or two bytes. Note that the negotiation

of default PID does not require the transmitter to send the first

subframe with PFF=0 even if doing so would optimize the transmission.

And, as always, the option (and thus the default PID) is negotiated

by the receiver, i.e., the receiver will interpret a received PPPmux

packet using the default PID it offered.

LCP frames MUST NOT be sent in Multiplexed frames. The only option in

PPPMuxCP is the negotiation of Default PID and is shown below

0 1 2 3

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

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

Type = 1 Length = 4 Default PID

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

Figure 2. Default PID option for PPPMuxCP

3. Interaction with PPP Multilink (MP) Protocol

PPP multiplexed frame option is negotiated by an NCP. LCP is

negotiated over each member link of a multilink bundle and not on the

bundle itself [5]. Thus in case of MP, PPPmux cannot be negotiated

for individual links, but only for the bundle.

Hence, on the transmitter side PPP multiplexing always occurs before

multilink PPP encapsulation. On a link, an MP header (if present)

MUST be outside of a PPPmux header (if present). Multilink frames

must not be sent in Multiplexed frames.

4. Interaction with CCP and ECP

PPP multiplexing must be performed below (after) any bundle-level CCP

and/or ECP, and above (before) MP and any per-link CCP and/or ECP.

Thus, to negotiate the hypothetical transmit path sequence CCP ->

PPPMux -> ECP, the bundle-level version of CCP (80fd) and the per-

link version of ECP (8055) are negotiated along with the PPPMux

Option.

An implementation that cannot perform PPPMux above CCP or ECP MUST

issue Protocol-Reject for the per-link forms of CCP and ECP if PPPMux

has been negotiated.

5. Security Considerations

This document does not impose additional security considerations

beyond those that apply to PPP and header-compression schemes over

PPP.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank contributors on the PPPext mailing

list, especially James Carlson, for valuable inputs to this document.

7. References

[1] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and B.

Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC2661, August

1999.

[2] Simpson, W., Ed., "PPP LCP extensions", RFC1570, January, 1994.

[3] Simpson, W., Ed., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC1662,

July 1994.

[4] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-To-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,

RFC1661, July 1994.

[5] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D., and T. Coradetti,

"The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC1990, August 1996.

[6] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol

(IPCP)", RFC1332, May 1992.

[7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

8. Author's Addresses

Rajesh Pazhyannur

Motorola, Network Solutions Sector

1501, W. Shure Drive

Arlington Heights, IL 60004

Phone: (847) 632-4524

EMail: pazhynnr@cig.mot.com

Irfan Ali

Motorola, Network Solutions Sector

1501, W. Shure Drive

Arlington Heights, IL 60004

Phone: (847) 632-3281

EMail: fia225@email.mot.com

Craig Fox

Cisco Systems

170 W. Tasman Street

San Jose, CA 95134

Phone: (408) 526-6296

EMail: fox@cisco.com

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
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