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

Versions: (draft-wing-avt-tcrtp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4170

Audio/Video Transport Working Group                      Bruce Thompson
Internet Draft                                           Tmima Koren
November 20, 2000                                        Dan Wing
Expires June 2001                                        Cisco Systems
draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-02.txt


             Tunneling multiplexed Compressed RTP ("TCRTP")

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 obsolete 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 Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.


1. Abstract

This document describes a method to improve the end-to-end bandwidth
utilization of RTP streams over an IP network using compression and
multiplexing. This document describes the application of existing
protocols for compression, multiplexing, and end to end tunneling.

2. Introduction

This document describes the application of existing protocols for
compression, multiplexing, and end to end tunneling that can be used by
RTP applications to implement an end to end multiplexing scheme for RTP
transport. Header Compression is used to reduce the header overhead of
a single RTP payload. Tunneling is used to transport compressed headers
and payloads through a multiple hop IP network without having to
compress and decompress at each link. Multiplexing is used to reduce
the overhead of tunnel headers by amortizing a single tunnel header
over many RTP payloads.

For compression, this document proposes the use of RFC 2508 based RTP
header compression (CRTP). RFC 2508 describes the use of RTP header
compression on an unspecified link layer transport. Most CRTP
implementations use PPP as the link layer transport for the session.
PPP has been integrated with a number of physical link layer protocols
such as HDLC. When PPP is integrated with a physical link layer for
CRTP transport, it has the disadvantage that headers must be compressed
and decompressed at each IP hop in an end to end network.

A CRTP session can be made to work across multiple IP hops to enable
end to end compression by tunneling the PPP session. The tunneling
protocol proposed by this document is L2TP (RFC 2661). L2TP is a
general tunneling protocol for PPP sessions. Since PPP is used as the
link layer protocol for CRTP, the extensions described in RFC 2509 are
required to negotiate the CRTP session.

When the overhead of a tunnel header is added to a single compressed
RTP payload, there is very little bandwidth savings when compared to
uncompressed transport of RTP streams. Multiplexing is required to
amortize the overhead of the tunnel header over many RTP payloads. The
multiplexing format that is proposed by this document is PPP
multiplexing (Draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-00.txt). PPP multiplexing allows
many PPP payloads to be encapsulated as a single multiplexed PPP
payload. The resulting multiplexed PPP payload can then be transported
between two RTP endpoints using L2TP.

In order to make end to end transport of CRTP sessions efficient when
using L2TP, some extensions are needed to both the CRTP protocol and
the L2TP protocol. This document describes extensions that have been
proposed for these protocols to make them more efficient when they are
used as described in this document. These extensions to CRTP and L2TP
have been proposed in separate Internet drafts.

3. Protocol Operation and Recommended Extensions

3.1. CRTP

When CRTP sessions are transported through a network using an L2TP
tunnel, some of the basic assumptions used for CRTP over a single
physical link may no longer be valid. Tunneling a CRTP session through
multiple IP hops may increase the round trip delay and the chance of
packet loss. CRTP contexts get invalidated due to packet loss. The CRTP
error recovery mechanism using CONTEXT_STATE messages can compound the
loss problem when long round trip delays are involved. This is because
once the CRTP decompressor context state gets out of sync with the
compressor, it will drop packets associated with the context until the
two states are resynchronized. Resynchronization involves the
transmission of the CONTEXT_STATE message from the decompressor to the
compressor, and a FULL_HEADER message from the compressor to the
decompressor.

Enhancements to CRTP are needed to minimize feedback based error
recovery using context state messages. Draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-
01.txt proposes CRTP enhancements to make it more tolerant of packet
loss, and minimize the need to use the CRTP error recovery mechanism.
Specific recommendations for the use of the CRTP protocol when
transported through a tunnel are described below.

The CU* packet format described in Draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt
should be used to synchronize CRTP compressor and decompressor state
whenever the incoming packet stream causes a change in the compressor
context state. The CU* packet format allows any portion of the context
state to be transmitted from the compressor to the decompressor.

To ensure delivery of state changes, CU* packets should be delivered
using either the N mode of operation or the ACK mode of operation
described in Draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt. The method that should
be used depends on the expected loss rate of packets in the network.
Networks with a low loss rate for packets in the tunnel should use the
N mode of operation. Networks with a high loss rate should use the ACK
mode of operation.

UDP checksums should be used for RTP packets transported using TCRTP.
The twice algorithm described in RFC 2508 should be used by the CRTP
decompressor to resynchronize context state in the event of packet loss
within the tunnel. In the event that UDP checksums are not generated by
the application, the CRTP compressor should use the CRTP Headers
checksum described in Draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt.

Tunneled transport does not guarantee in order delivery of packets.
Therefore, the CRTP decompressor must be capable of operation in the
presence of out of order packet delivery. A CRTP decompressor may treat
out of order delivery the same as packet loss. There is no need to
reorder packets that are delivered out of order.


3.2 PPP Multiplexing

Draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-01.txt describes an encapsulation that allows
combining multiple PPP payloads into one multiplexed payload. The
encapsulation format used for PPP multiplexing allows any supported PPP
payload type to be multiplexed.

Draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-01.txt describes the logic of an example PPP
multiplexing transmitter. When PPP multiplexing is used with an L2TP
tunnel, the transmitter will typically not have access to an interface
transmit queue. In many PPP multiplexing implementations, the PPP
multiplex transmitter will send packets to a tunnel encapsulation
module. The tunnel encapsulation module will typically be implemented
above the IP layer. This means that when the PPP multiplex transmitter
encapsulates packets, the outbound physical interface for the packet
will not be known. The result is that in implementations such as this,
the PPP multiplex transmission algorithm as described in draft-ietf-
pppext-pppmux-01.txt will never multiplex multiple PPP payloads into
one multiplex PPP payload.

To enable the PPP multiplex transmission algorithm to work properly in
tunneled implementations, some modifications to the transmission logic
are needed. The transmission logic could be modified to collect
incoming payloads to be multiplexed until one of two conditions
occurred. The first condition is that a target number (N) of payloads
or bytes has arrived at the multiplexer. The second condition is that a
timer (T) which bounds delay in the multiplexer has expired. The first
condition is used to ensure that the multiplexer encapsulates multiple
payloads in the same PPP multiplex payload independent of the method
used to hand packets to the next encapsulation layer. The second
condition is used to always bound the amount of delay to an acceptable
value. Delay due to multiplexing may become unacceptable in cases where
there are not enough payloads arriving at the multiplexer to allow the
multiplexed packet to be sent in a timely manner using only the first
condition. The timer is reset whenever a multiplexed payload is sent to
the next encapsulation layer.

The optimal values for N and T will vary depending upon the rate at
which payloads are expected to arrive at the multiplexer and the amount
of acceptable delay allowed in the network.

3.3. L2TP

L2TP tunnels should be used to tunnel the CRTP payloads end to end.
This is a natural choice since CRTP payloads are PPP payloads, and L2TP
allows tunneled transport of PPP payloads. L2TP includes methods for
tunneling messages used in PPP session establishment such as NCP. This
allows the procedures of RFC 2509 to be used for negotiating the use of
CRTP within a tunnel and to negotiate compression/decompression
parameters to be used for the CRTP session.

To get reasonable bandwidth efficiency using multiplexing within an
L2TP tunnel, multiple RTP streams must be active between the source and
destination of an L2TP tunnel. If the source and destination of the
L2TP tunnel are the same as the source and destination of the CRTP
sessions, then the source and destination must have multiple active RTP
streams to get any benefit from multiplexing. Because of this
limitation, TCRTP is mostly useful for applications where many RTP
sessions run between a pair of RTP endpoints. The number of
simultaneous RTP sessions required to reduce the header overhead to a
minimum depends on how big the L2TP header is. A smaller L2TP header
will result in fewer simultaneous RTP sessions being required to
produce bandwidth efficiencies similar to CRTP.

Draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-00.txt describes a method of compressing L2TP
tunnel headers from 36 bytes including the IP header to 21 bytes.
L2TPHC packets include an IP header, using an IP protocol that is
negotiated between the two hosts at the ends of the L2TP tunnel. The
UDP header is omitted, and the L2TPHC header is reduced to 1 byte. The
added overhead is now 21 bytes of the combined IP and L2TPHC headers.

When L2TP is used to carry CRTP streams, the RTP streams may use the EF
DSCP. When an EF packet is tunneled, the tunnel header must be marked
as EF. This is a requirement of RFC 2598. To prevent TCRTP tunnels from
using excess EF bandwidth, it is recommended that only packets marked
with the EF DSCP be transported in the tunnel with EF DSCP.

3.4 Encapsulation Formats

The packet format for an RTP packet compressed with RTP header
compression
As defined in RFC 2508 is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         |   MSTI  |             |                       |
   | Context |         |     UDP     |                       |
   |   ID    |   Link  |   Checksum  |       RTP Data        |
   |         | Sequence|             |                       |
   |  (1-2)  |   (1)   |     (0-2)   |                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The packet format of a multiplexed PPP packet is as follows:
(diagram taken from draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-01.txt)

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Mux   |P L|     |       |     |   |P L|     |       |     |
   | PPP   |F X|Len1 |  PPP  |     |   |F X|LenN |  PPP  |     |
   | Prot. |F T|     | Prot. |Info1| ~ |F T|     | Prot. |InfoN|
   | Field |         | Field1|     |   |         |FieldN |     |
   | (1)   |1-2 bytes| (0-2) |     |   |1-2 bytes| (0-2) |     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


The format of an L2TPHC packet with a PPP payload is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  IP header        | L2TPHC  |      PPP payload                |
   |                   | Header  |                                 |
   |    (20)           |  (1)    |                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The combined format used for TCRTP with a single payload is:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP hdr|L2TPHC | Mux   |P L|     |       |       | MSTI|       |     |
|       |Header | PPP   |F X|Len1 |  PPP  |Context|     | UDP   |RTP  |
| (20)  | (1)   | Prot. |F T|     | Prot. |  ID   | Link| Cksum |Data |
|       |       | Field |         | Field1|       | Seq |       |     |
|       |       | (1)   |1-2 bytes| (0-2) | (1-2) | (1) | (0-2) |     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

CRTP is defined in RFC2508

Extensions to CRTP to make it more tolerant to packet loss are defined
in: draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt.
L2TPHC is defined in:  draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-02.txt

PPP multiplexing is defined in:  draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-01.txt

4. Bandwidth Efficiency

The expected bandwidth efficiency attainable with TCRTP depends upon a
number of factors. These factors include multiplexing gain, expected
loss rate within the tunnel, and rates of change of fields within the
IP and RTP headers.  This section also describes how TCRTP
significantly enhances bandwidth efficiency for voice over IP over ATM.

4.1 Multiplexing gains

Multiplexing reduces the overhead associated with the layer 2 and
tunnel headers. Increasing the number of CRTP payloads combined into
one multiplexed PPP payload increases multiplexing gain. As traffic
increases within a tunnel, more payloads will be able to be combined in
one multiplexed payload. This will increase multiplexing gain. The
effect of multiplexing gain on per flow bandwidth will decrease as more
payloads are added to the multiplexed payload.

4.2 Packet loss rate

The expected loss rate in a tunnel will affect the decision of which
method is used to indicate state changes.

In cases where the loss rate is relatively low (<5%) the "N mode"
should be sufficient to ensure delivery of state changes (described in
draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt). The optimal value of N will vary
depending on the loss rate in the tunnel. A value of N=2 will protect
against the loss of a single packet within a compressed session. A
value of N=3 will protect against the loss of two packets in a row
within a compressed session and so on. Assuming a random distribution
of loss within a single compressed session and tunnel loss rates < 1%,
the probability of a loss of two or more packets in a row in a
compressed session should be < .01%. For networks with a tunnel loss
rate of 1% or less, N=2 should be sufficient to ensure reliable
transmission of compression state changes.

The other mechanism described in draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt,
"ACK mode", is not described in this document. "ACK mode" is mostly
applicable to very lossy networks (>5%).

4.3 Changing headers

There are two fields in the RTP/UDP/IP header whose deltas are likely
to change fairly often. These fields are the RTP Time Stamp and the
Identification field in the IP header.

4.3.1  Voice Activity Detection

For voice applications, voice activity detection will cause an
unpredictable gap in the RTP Time Stamp field whenever a new talk spurt
begins. This gap in the RTP Time Stamp field will cause a change in the
CRTP Time Stamp delta field. To allow all the compressed state
information for the RTP Time Stamp field to be updated in the event of
packet loss, the new RTP timestamp needs to be delivered at the
beginning of a talk spurt. The CU* compressed header format is used to
deliver the absolute RTP timestamp. N mode is used to ensure these
changes are transmitted from compressor to decompressor.

4.3.2  IPID

Depending on the implementation of the source node of an RTP flow, the
Identification field in the IP header (IPID) can change randomly from
packet to packet within a flow.

An IP transmitter typically increments the IPID field by a constant
value from packet to packet, but the delta IPID between two packets
within an RTP flow may actually change by any value. When compressing
an RTP stream where the IPID is not incrementing by a constant value,
the best way to maintain context synchronization is to use the CU*
header format and include the absolute IPID in each compressed packet.

4.4  Bandwidth calculation formula

The formula below uses the factors that have been described above to
come up with a model for per flow bandwidth usage.

The following variables are defined:

SOV-TCRTP = The per sample overhead of CRTP and the multiplexed PPP
header in bytes. This value does not include additional overhead for
updating IPID or the RTP Time Stamp fields. The value assumes the use
of the COMPRESSED-RTP payload type. It consists of 1 byte for the CRTP
context ID, 1 byte for COMPRESSED-RTP flags, 2 bytes for the UDP
checksum, 1 byte for PPP protocol ID, and 1 byte for the multiplexed
PPP length field. This gives a total of 6 bytes.

POV-TCRTP = The per packet overhead of tunneled CRTP in bytes. This is
the overhead for the tunnel header and the multiplexed PPP payload
type. This value is 20 bytes for the IP header, 1 byte for the L2TPHC
header, and 2 bytes for the multiplexed PPP protocol ID. Additional
overhead needed to be added for layer 2 encapsulation. For HDLC, the
layer 2 overhead would be 7 bytes. This gives a total per packet
overhead of 30 bytes.

VAD-LENGTH = The average length of a talk spurt for voice streams with
voice activity detection enabled. This is typically around 1500 msec.
Expressed in milliseconds.

SOV-TSTAMP = The additional per sample overhead of the CU* header that
includes the absolute time stamp field. This value includes 1 byte for
the extra flags field in the CU* header and 2 bytes for the absolute
time stamp for a total of 3 bytes.

SOV-IPID = The additional per sample overhead of the CU* header that
includes the absolute IPID field. This value includes 2 bytes for the
absolute IPID. This value also includes 1 byte for the extra flags
field in the CU* header. The total is 3 bytes.

IPID-RATIO = The frequency that IPID need to be updated. This value is
0 or 1. If IPID is changing randomly and always needs to be updated,
then IPID-RATIO will be 1. If IPID is changing by a constant amount
between samples of a flow, then IPID-RATIO will be 0.

N = The value of N for N mode. This is the number of times an update
field will be repeated in CRTP headers to increase the delivery rate
between the compressor and decompressor. For this example, we will
assume N=2.

PAYLOAD-SIZE = The size of the voice payload in bytes.

MUX-SIZE = The number of PPP payloads to be multiplexed into one
multiplexed PPP payload.

SAMPLE-PERIOD = The average sample period of all calls in the
multiplex. In msec.

BANDWIDTH = The average amount of bandwidth used per call. In kbits /
sec.

SOV-TOTAL = The total amount of per sample overhead associated with
tunneled CRTP. It includes the per sample overhead of CRTP and PPP,
timestamp update overhead, and IPID update overhead.

SOV-TOTAL = SOV-TCRTP +
            SOV-TSTAMP * (N * SAMPLE-PERIOD / VAD-LENGTH) +
            SOV-IPID   * (N * IPID-RATIO)

BANDWIDTH  = ((PAYLOAD-SIZE + SOV-TOTAL + (POV-TCRTP / MUX-SIZE)) * 8)
                                                     / SAMPLE-PERIOD)

To create an example using the above formulas, we will assume the
following usage scenario. Compressed voice streams using G.729
compression with a 20 msec packetization period. In this scenario, VAD
is enabled and the average talk spurt length is 1500 msec. The IPID
field is changing randomly between payloads of streams. There is enough
traffic in the tunnel to allow 3 payloads to be multiplexed in a
multiplexed PPP payload. The following values apply:

SAMPLE-PERIOD = 20 msec
VAD-LENGTH    = 1500 msec
IPID-RATIO    = 1
PAYLOAD-SIZE  = 20 bytes
MUX-SIZE      = 3

For this example, per call bandwidth is 16 kbits/sec. Non tunneled CRTP
over a single HDLC link using the same factors as above yields 12.8
kbits/sec.

The effect of IPID can have a large effect on per call bandwidth. If
the above example is recalculated using an IPID-RATIO of 0, then the
per call bandwidth is reduced to 14.4 kbits/sec. Non tunneled CRTP over
a single HDLC link using these same factors yields 12 kbits/call.

4.5 TCRTP Efficiency for Voice over IP over ATM

Layer 2 encapsulation can have a large effect on the amount of
bandwidth used with TCRTP encapsulation. Multiplexing gain has a
dramatic effect on bandwidth when ATM encapsulation is used. IP
transport over AAL-5 causes a quantizing effect to bandwidth
utilization. This is because packet sizes will always be in multiples
of ATM cell sizes, due to the small sample sizes associated with voice
with low bit rate coders.

For example, the sample size for a G.729 coder using 10 msec sample
rate is 10 bytes. This is much smaller than the payload size of an ATM
cell (48 bytes). When standard IP header compression schemes (CRTP) are
applied in an ATM environment, the result is VOIP packets that are
small. However, AAL-5 encapsulation and the resulting cell padding
cause the minimum PDU size to be one ATM cell.

Instead of wasting this padding, the multiplexing of TCRTP allows this
previously wasted space in the ATM cell to contain useful data.  This
is one of the main reasons why multiplexing has such a large effect on
bandwidth utilization with Voice over IP over ATM.

4.6. TCRTP Efficiency for Voice over IP over non-ATM networks

When TCRTP is used with other layer 2 encapsulations that do not have a
minimum PDU size, the benefits of multiplexing is not as great.

Depending upon the exact overhead of the layer 2 encapsulation, the
benefits of VOIP multiplexing might be slightly better or worse than
link-by-link CRTP header compression. The per sample overhead of CRTP
tunneling is either 4 or 6 bytes. If classical CRTP plus layer 2
overhead is greater than this amount, VOIP multiplexing will end up
having lower bandwidth than classical CRTP when the outer IP header is
amortized over a large number of samples.

The breakeven point in samples can be determined by the following
formula:
POV-L2 * MUX-SIZE >= POV-L2 + POV-TUNNEL + POV-PPPMUX +
                                         SOV-PPPMUX * MUX-SIZE

Where:
POV-L2     = Layer 2 packet overhead: 7 bytes for HDLC encapsulation
POV-TUNNEL = Packet overhead due to tunneling: 20 bytes IP header, 1
             byte L2TPHC header: 21 bytes
POV-PPPMUX = Packet overhead for the multiplexed PPP protocol ID:
             1 byte
SOV-PPPMUX = Per sample overhead of PPPMUX that includes the sample
             length and sometimes the CRTP protocol ID: 1-3 bytes

For HDLC, the breakeven point is when MUX-SIZE = 6.


5. Example implementation of TCRTP

This section describes an example implementation of TCRTP.
Implementations of TCRTP may be done in many ways as long as the
requirements of the associated RFCs are met.

Here is the path an RTP packet takes in this implementation:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +
      |          Application          |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             |
      |              RTP              |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+        Application
      |              UDP              |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             |
      |              IP               |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +
                      |
                      |  IP forwarding
                      |
                      +
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +
      |             CRTP              |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             |
      |            PPPMUX             |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+          Tunnel
      |             PPP               |         Interface
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             |
      |             L2TP              |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             |
      |              IP               |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +
                      |
                      |  IP forwarding
                      |
                      +
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +
      |            Layer 2            |             |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+          Physical
      |             Phys              |          Interface
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+             +


A protocol stack is configured to create an L2TP tunnel interface to a
destination host. The tunnel is configured to negotiate NCP IPCP with
CRTP header compression and PPPMUX. IP forwarding is configured to
route packets with the same destination address of the previously
configured L2TP tunnel interface to that tunnel interface. To ensure
that other traffic destined to the same IP address is not routed to
this tunnel interface, the forwarding module should be configured to
examine additional information in the IP packet. The destination UDP
port number is an example of the additional information that may be
used to select the L2TP tunnel interface.

The transmitting application gathers the RTP data and formats an RTP
packet. Lower level application layers add UDP and IP headers to form a
complete IP packet.

The RTP packets are routed to the tunnel interface where they are
compressed, multiplexed, and tunneled to the destination host.

The operation of the receiving node is the same as the transmitting
node in reverse.


6. Suggested PPP and L2TP negotiation for TCRTP

This section describes the PPP negotiation necessary for establishing a
PPP connection, and the L2TP negotiation necessary for establishing an
L2TPHC tunnel.
The negotiation is between two peers: Peer1 and Peer2.

6.1 PPP negotiation necessary for TCRTP

6.1.1 LCP negotiation - RFC1661

6.1.1.1  Link Establishment

           Peer1                       Peer2
           -----                       -----
Configure-Request (no options) ->
                                <- Configure-Ack
                                <- Configure-Request (no options)
Configure-Ack                  ->


6.1.1.2 Link Tear Down

Terminate-Request              ->
                                <- Terminate-Ack


6.1.2 IPCP negotiation -  RFC1332 and RFC2509

           Peer1                       Peer2
           -----                       -----
Configure-Request              ->
  Option:
  IP-Compression-Protocol
  Use protocol 0x61
  and sub-parameters
  as described in RFC2509
                                <- Configure-Ack
                                <- Configure-Request
                                     Option: IP-Compression-Protocol
                                     Use protocol 0x61
                                     and sub-parameters
                                     as described in RFC2509
Configure-Ack                  ->


6.2 L2TP negotiation necessary for TCRTP -
         RFC2661 and draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-02.txt

6.2.1 Tunnel Establishment

           Peer1                       Peer2
           -----                       -----
SCCRQ                          ->
  Mandatory AVP's:
  Message Type
  Protocol Version
  Host Name
  Framing Capabilities
  Assigned Tunnel ID
                                <- SCCRP
                                     Mandatory AVP's:
                                     Message Type
                                     Protocol Version
                                     Host Name
                                     Framing Capabilities
                                     Assigned Tunnel ID
SCCCN                          ->
Mandatory AVP's:
  Message Type
                                <- ZLB

6.2.2 Session Establishment

           Peer1                       Peer2
           -----                       -----
ICRQ                           ->
  Mandatory AVP's:
  Message Type
  Assigned Session ID
  Call Serial Number
  L2TPHC AVP (See draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-02.txt)
                                <- ICRP
                                     Mandatory AVP's:
                                     Message Type
                                     Assigned Session ID
                                     L2TPHC AVP
ICCN                           ->
  Mandatory AVP's:
  Message Type
  Tx (Connect Speed)
  Framing Type
                                <- ZLB


6.2.3 Tunnel Tear Down

           Peer1                       Peer2
           -----                       -----
StopCCN                        ->
  Mandatory AVP's:
  Message Type
  Assigned Tunnel ID
  Result Code
                                <- ZLB


7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the authors of RFC2508,
   Stephen Casner and Van Jacobson, and the authors of RFC2507,
   Mikael Degermark, Bjorn Nordgren, and Stephen Pink.

   The authors would also like to thank Dana Blair, Alex Tweedley,
   Paddy Ruddy, Francois Le Faucheur, Tim Gleeson, Matt Madison,
   Hussein Salama, Mallik Tatipamula, Mike Thomas, Mark Townsley,
   Andrew Valencia, Herb Wildfeuer, J Martin Borden, John Geevarghese,
   and Shoou Yiu.

8. References

   [L2TPHC] A. Valencia, "L2TP Header Compression ("L2TPHC") ",
   draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-02.txt, June 2000.

   [PPPMUX] R. Pazhyannur, I. Ali, "PPP Multiplexed Frame Option",
   draft-ietf-pppext-pppmux-01.txt, October 2000.

   [ECRTP] T. Koren, S. Casner, P. Ruddy, B. Thompson, A. Tweeedly,
   D. Wing, J. Geevarghese, "Enhancements to IP/UDP/RTP Header
   Compression", draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-01.txt,
   November 2000.

   [CRTP] S. Casner, V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for
   Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC2508, February 1999.

   [IPHCOMP] M. Degermark, B. Nordgren, S. Pink,
   "IP Header Compression", RFC2507, February 1999.

   [IPCPHC] M. Engan, S. Casner, C. Bormann,
   "IP Header Compression over PPP", RFC2509, February 1999.

   [RTP] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, "RTP: A
   Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC1889,
   January 1996.

   [L2TP] W. Townsley, A. Valencia, A. Rubens, G. Pall, G. Zorn,
   B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC2661,
   August 1999.


9. Authors' Addresses

   Bruce Thompson
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 408 527 0446
   Email: brucet@cisco.com

   Tmima Koren
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 408 527 6169
   Email: tmima@cisco.com

   Dan Wing
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 408 525 5314
   Email: dwing@cisco.com

10.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  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.


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/