[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

L2TPEXT Working Group                                  Andrew J. Valencia
Internet Draft                                                Tmima Koren
November 2, 2002                                            Cisco Systems
Expires June 2003
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-06.txt


                  L2TP Header Compression ("L2TPHC")


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol ("L2TP") defined in RFC 2661 defines a
   mechanism for tunneling PPP sessions over IP. There
   exists a class of specific media applications for which protocol
   overhead may be optimized, and where such reduction results in
   improved operation. This document describes the solution space
   addressed, its underlying motivations, and the protocol modifications
   required. The enhancement to the L2TP protocol is called L2TP Header
   Compression, or "L2TPHC".

1. Introduction

   L2TP [RFC2661] defines a general purpose mechanism for tunneling PPP
   over various media. In most cases, the header overhead of the L2TP
   tunnel is negligible. However, when L2TP operates over bandwidth
   constrained networks such as dialup links or some classes of WAN
   backhauls, any savings of bytes transmitted results in a substantial
   efficiency gain. This effect is further amplified when streams of
   small IP packets dominate the traffic (thus increasing the header-
   to-payload ratio), as is common with multimedia and other types of
   real-time data traffic.

2. Simplifying Assumptions

   If several simplifying assumptions are met, it is possible to
   reduce the size of the L2TP encapsulation over IP:

      - The tunnel will not operate through a NAT interface
      - The tunnel uses a single IP address for the life of the tunnel
      - The tunnel's host uses only one public IP network interface
      - There will be only one tunnel between the LAC and the LNS
      - There might be only one session within a tunnel
      - There might be only one protocol active on that session
      - Alignment is not required
      - Packet length is preserved by the IP header

   Each of these simplifying assumptions directly relates to an L2TP
   protocol header field's function. Because NAT functionality is not
   needed, the UDP header is not required. Because the endpoints will
   not change their source IP addresses (due to either changing IP
   addresses, moving among IP egress points, or switching to a distinct
   backup IP interface), the identity of the peer may be determined by
   its source IP address, rather than the Tunnel ID. If there is only
   one tunnel, it is trivial to determine the Tunnel ID. Because each
   byte is a measurable component of overhead, it is better to send
   fields on unaligned boundaries rather than ever pad. Because IP will
   preserve the packet length end-to-end, there is no need to
   communicate this in the header itself.

   In addition, several operational considerations permit further
   simplification:

      - There is no need to optimize control packet overhead
      - Version compatibility may be determined by control packets

The first two bytes of an L2TP payload header determine the presence
of further, optional, fields. It also contains a Version field, used
to detect compatible version operation.

In the presence of the simplying assumptions listed above, it is
possible to systematically minimize or eliminate the L2TP fields in
the header of an L2TP data message. For example, if one assumes that
there is no more than a single session between two L2TP peers, then
the session ID in the L2TP header becomes irrelevant and may be
eliminated. Further, if there is only one version of L2TP running on
a pair of L2TP nodes (or, specifically, IP addresses on two L2TP
nodes), then there is no need for a version field in each data
packet.

Each assumption translates to a piece of information that may be left
out of the header. This document describes the most extreme case
where the entire L2TP header and/or the entire PPP header is
eliminated, resulting in a zero-byte "header" for each of these. Data
packets which meet the simplifying assumptions are then sent and
received over what is effectively a parallel data channel for packets
with the ultra-compressed L2TP and PPP header. The uncompressed data
channel still exists over UDP/IP as defined in RFC 2661, and any
packets not meeting the simplifying assumptions may still be sent
over this channel.

3. Tunnel Establishment

3.1 Negotiation

In order for two L2TP peers to send and receive data packets with the
compressed L2TP header of zero octets, the "L2TPHC-No-Header" AVP
MUST be sent and received in the ICRQ/ICRP or OCRQ/OCRP exchange
during session setup. If either side did not send, or did not
receive, this AVP during session establishment, L2TP MUST fall back
to utilization of an uncompressed header format for its data.

A second AVP, "L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol," may also be included in the
ICRQ/ICRP and OCRQ/OCRP message exchange to allow compression of the
PPP framing fields. As with the L2TPHC-No-Header AVP, this AVP MUST
be sent and received by both L2TP endpoints in order to enable PPP
framing compression.

The Value of the L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol AVP contains a two octet PPP
protocol number which will be assumed to be the single protocol type
carried in the payload of all PPP packets carried by L2TPHC. This AVP
indicates that the payload transmitted through L2TPHC will also omit
PPP HDLC flags and control fields, in addition to the one or two byte
protocol field indicated by the value in the L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol AVP.
Any PPP packets with a protocol ID other than that indicated in this
AVP, including any LCP or NCP control packets, MUST be sent over the
uncompressed data channel with the entire L2TP over UDP/IP header
intact.

3.2 AVP Formats

   All AVP's MUST always be sent with the M, H, and "rsvd" bits all set
   to 0. All Attribute fields are 16-bit quantities in network byte
   order.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |M|H| rsvd  |         6         |               0               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TBD1             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      L2TPHC-No-Header's Attribute is value TBD1.
      There is no Value field. When L2TPHC-No-Header
      is both sent and received, L2TPHC will directly encapsulate the
      PPP payload without any L2TPHC header byte.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |M|H| rsvd  |         8         |               0               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TBD2             |          PPP Protocol         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol's Attribute is value TBD2. The Value field is any
legal PPP value for an NCP protocol. PPP allows some protocol types
to be expressed in a compressed, 8 bit, form. The value included in
this AVP is always the 16-bit form. This AVP indicates that PPP
traffic carried over L2TPHC will not only have no L2TPHC header, but
will also have no PPP address, control, or protocol fields. If
necessary, these fields will be reconstructed on the receiving L2TPHC
peer side, with the protocol value being always set to the Value
indicated by this AVP.

4. Payload Exchange

After the L2TPHC-No-Header AVP is sent to and received from the peer,
two data channels exist between the peers, one for compressed
packets, the other for non-compressed packets. PPP payload packets
may be sent to the peer's IP address over each of these two data
channels. The compressed packets are sent as raw IP packets, with the
IP protocol number set to 115 (the IANA-assigned value for L2TP). At
the same time non-compressed packets may be sent over the non-
compressed data channel as UDP-based L2TP packets. The payload so
exchanged is always associated with the tunnel on which the AVP was
received, and with the single session within that tunnel.

Note that the active L2TP control channel and associated Hello
messages are sent as non-compressed packets and hence indicate tunnel
endpoint reachability only for the non-compressed channel.

   An L2TPHC packet is encoded as:

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...+
      |        PPP packet...         ...|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...+


   The PPP frame will consist of the usual PPP-over-HDLC address, con-
   trol, and protocol fields. However, if the L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol AVP
   has been sent and received, these fields are not present in the PPP
   payload, and must be re-inserted by the receiving side, using the
   protocol value indicated in the Value field of the
   L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol AVP.

5. Efficiency Considerations

   Some rough calculations will illustrate the environments in which
   L2TPHC may be beneficial. Overhead as a percentage of the carried
   traffic will be calculated for a typical packet size involved in bulk
   data transfer (700 bytes), and the canonical 64-byte "small IP
   packet". Percentages will be rounded to the nearest whole number.
   Overhead is tallied for an IP header of 20 bytes, a UDP header of 8
   bytes, an L2TP header of 8 bytes, and a PPP encapsulation of 4 bytes.

   The worst case is a 64-byte packet carried within a UDP L2TP header.
   The 64 bytes of payload is carried by an overall header of 40 bytes,
   resulting in an overhead of 63%. With the larger payload size of 700
   bytes, the header is amortized over many more bytes, reducing the
   overhead to 6%.

   With L2TPHC, the UDP and L2TP headers are absent, and the 4 bytes of
   PPP encapsulation have been deleted. Overall size is thus 20 bytes
   of IP header. The small packet now suffers an overhead of only 31%,
   and the larger packet 3%.

   Percentage overhead does not represent all the considerations
   involved in reducing overhead. Consider a modem connection operating
   at 14,400 bits per second, which translates to a per-byte real-time
   cost of 0.6 milliseconds (14400 divided by 8 bits, as async framing
   characters are not included in the modem-to-modem data transfer). A
   savings of 16 bytes per packet can also be viewed as a reduction of
   almost 10 milliseconds of latency per packet. While this latency is
   short enough to be unnoticeable by a human, it may impact real-time
   protocols such as streaming audio or video.

   Thus, L2TP Header Compression provides most of its benefits when car-
   rying streams of small packets. In environments such as downloading
   of graphic files, or where human interaction is intermingled with the
   short packets, the benefits of L2TP Header Compression will probably
   be undetectable.

6. Security Considerations

   Because L2TPHC has no security facilities, it is critical that its
   operation be reconciled with the security policy of its environment.
   Since L2TPHC may have no protocol header at all, it is trivial to
   spoof a source IP address and inject malicious packets into an ongo-
   ing session. There are several suitable techniques for controlling
   this exposure.

   In the simplest case, L2TPHC operates across a private network. For
   instance, a remote user may dial into a private NAS located on this
   network, and use L2TP (with or without L2TPHC) to cross an IP-only
   portion of this network to establish a multi-protocol session con-
   nected at a convenient point in the network. In this environment, no
   additional security may be required, and L2TPHC would operate trust-
   ing to the integrity of this private network.

   If the weak protection of a difficult-to-guess protocol header is
   deemed sufficient, expanded protocol overhead has clearly been deter-
   mined to be acceptable, and L2TP over UDP can be used without L2TPHC.

   If PPP encryption under ECP [RFC1968] is active, malicious PPP pack-
   ets are trivially detected and discarded as they are received on the
   raw IP port number. Similarly, if an IPsec session is protecting the
   IP packets themselves, malicious packets will also be discarded.
   Note that in both cases, an expanded header is implicit in these
   security facilities, which will greatly reduce the overhead
   efficiencies gained by L2TPHC.

7. IANA Considerations

This protocol defines two new Control Message Attribute Value Pairs
(AVP's) in the IANA Layer Two Tunneling Protocol registry.  As
defined in [RFC2661] section 10.1, assignment of new AVP's is through
IETF consensus.  This document is intended to satisfy that
requirement.

The two new AVP's are:

    TBD1    L2TPHC-No-Header
    TBD2    L2TPHC-PPP-Protocol

No registry of values is required for either AVP.  Since these are
IETF-adopted (not private) AVP's, the vendor ID field of the AVP
should be set to zero.

[Note to RFC Editor: Please replace all instances of TBD1 and TBD2
here and in Section 3.2 with the IANA-assigned values.]

8. References

   Normative References

   [RFC2661]  M. Townsley, "Layer 2 Tunnel Protocol (L2TP)", RFC 2661,
   August 1999

   Informative References

   [RFC1968] G. Meyer, "PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)",
   RFC 1968, June 1996

9. Acknowledgments

Many thanks to W. Mark Townsley of Cisco Systems for his
contributions in both the review and content of this document.
Thanks to Gurdeep Singh Pall of Microsoft for identifying and
describing scenarios in which L2TP header size become a concern.
Thanks to Stephen Casner of Packet Design and to Bill Palter of
Redback Networks for help in reviewing this document.

10. Authors' Addresses

   Andrew J. Valencia
   P.O. Box 2928
   Vashon, WA  98070

   Email: vandys@zendo.com


   Tmima Koren
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134-1706
   United States

   EMail: tmima@cisco.com


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/