One document matched: draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt
IPv6 Working Group S.Varada (Editor)
Internet Draft Transwitch
Category: Standards track May 2007
Expires: November 2007
Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol
<draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) 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.
The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPv6CP), which is an NCP for a PPP
link, allows for the negotiation of desirable parameters for the
IPv6 interface over PPP.
Varada [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
This document defines the IPv6 datagram compression option that
can be negotiated by a node on the link through the IPv6CP.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
1.1 Specification of Requirements..............................3
2. IPV6CP Configuration Options...................................3
2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol..................................3
3. Security Considerations........................................4
4. IANA Considerations............................................5
5. Acknowledgments................................................5
6. References.....................................................6
6.1 Normative References.......................................6
6.2 Informative References.....................................6
Editor's Address..................................................6
IPR Notice ......................................................6
Copyright Notice and Disclaimer...................................7
1. Introduction
PPP [1] 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 (power failure at the other end, carrier
drop, etc.).
In the IPv6 over PPP specification [2], the NCP, or IPv6CP, for
establishing and configuring the IPv6 over PPP is defined. The
same specification defines the Interface Identifier parameter,
Varada November 2007 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
which can be used to generate link-local and global unique IPv6
addresses, for negotiation.
In this specification, the compression parameter for use in IPv6
datagram compression is defined.
1.1 Specification of Requirements
In this document, several words are used to signify the
requirements of the specification.
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 [3].
2. IPV6CP Configuration Options
IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6
parameters. IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format
defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options. If a
Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request
packet, the default value for that Configuration Option is
assumed.
The only IPV6CP option defined in this document is the IPv6-
Compression-Protocol. The Type field for this IPV6CP Option is as
follows:
2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol
Note that the up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field
are specified in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers"
maintained at IANA [4].
2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol
Description
This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a
specific IPv6 packet compression protocol. The
IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate
the ability to receive compressed packets. Each end of the link
MUST separately request this option if bi-directional compression
is desired. By default, compression is not enabled.
IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6
datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting
from negotiations via Compression Control Protocol (CCP), which
potentially affect all datagrams.
Varada November 2007 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option
format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to
right.
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 | Length | IPv6-Compression-Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Type
2
Length
>= 4
IPv6-Compression-Protocol
The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and indicates
the compression protocol desired. Values for this field are
always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field
values for that same compression protocol.
No IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values are currently
assigned. Specific assignments will be made in documents that
define specific compression algorithms.
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional
data as determined by the particular compression protocol.
Default
No IPv6 compression protocol enabled.
3. Security Considerations
Lack of proper link security, such as authentication, prior to
the data transfer may lead to such attacks as the man-in-the
Varada November 2007 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
middle resulting in the loss of data integrity and
confidentiality. The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring
PPP link security are addressed below together with the reference
to a generic threat model.
The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link
Security are: 1) Access Control Lists that apply filters on
traffic received over the link for enforcing admission policy, 2)
an Authentication protocol that facilitates negotiations between
peers [5] to select an authentication method (e.g., MD5 [6]) for
validation of the peer, and 3) an Encryption protocol that
facilitates negotiations between peers to select encryption
algorithms (or, crypto-suites) to ensure data confidentiality
[7]).
There are certain threats associated with peer interactions on a
PPP link even with one or more of the above security measures in
place. For instance, using MD5 authentication method [6] exposes
one to replay attack, where in which, an attacker could intercept
and replay a station's identity and password hash to get access
to a network. The user of this specification is advised to refer
to [5], which presents a generic threat model, for an
understanding of the threats posed to the security of a link. The
reference [5] also gives framework to specify requirements for
the selection of an authentication method for a given
application.
4. IANA Considerations
The author has no specific recommendations for the IANA on the
assignment of a value for the Type field of IPv6 datagram
compression option specified in this specification. The current
assignment is up-to-date at [4]. However, the reference to the
RFC number needs to be updated when such a number is assigned.
5. Acknowledgments
The editor is grateful to Jari Arkko for the direction provided on
this draft.
Varada November 2007 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
6. References
6.1 Normative References
[1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol," STD 51, RFC 1661,
July 1994.
[2] Varada, S., et. al., "IPv6 over PPP," drafts-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-
v2-03.txt, May 2007.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] IANA, "Assigned Numbers," http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
6.2 Informative References
[5] Aboba, R., et. al., "Extensible Authentication Protocol," RFC
3748, June 2004.
[6] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," RFC 1321, April
1992.
[7] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)," RFC
1968, June 1996.
Editor's Address
Srihari Varada
TranSwitch Corporation
3 Enterprise Dr.
Shelton, CT 06484. US.
Phone: +1 203 929 8810
EMail: varada@txc.com
IPR Notice
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.
Varada November 2007 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.txt May 2007
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.
Copyright Notice and Disclaimer
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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, THE
IETF TRUST 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.
Varada November 2007 [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 04:19:48 |