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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 4413

Network Working Group                                            M. West
Internet-Draft                                                 S. McCann
Expires: April 25, 2005                      Siemens/Roke Manor Research
                                                        October 25, 2004


                         TCP/IP Field Behavior
               draft-ietf-rohc-tcp-field-behavior-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo describes TCP/IP field behavior in the context of header
   compression.

   Header compression is possible thanks to the fact that most header
   fields do not vary randomly from packet to packet.  Many of the
   fields exhibit static behavior or change in a more or less
   predictable way.  When designing a header compression scheme, it is
   of fundamental importance to understand the behavior of the fields in
   detail.  An example of this analysis can be seen in RFC 3095 [36].



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   This memo performs a similar role for the compression of TCP/IP
   headers.




Change History

      -00 : Initial version
      -01 : Corrections and clarifications from review comments plus
      analysis of shareable fields
      -02 : Re-write shareable field section + incorporate Gorry's
      comments
      -03 : Correct references
      -04 : Incorporate WGLC comments




































West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  General classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1   IP header fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1   IPv6 header fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.2   IPv4 header fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2   TCP header fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.3   Summary for IP/TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Classification of replicable header fields . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1   IPv4 Header (inner and/or outer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.2   IPv6 Header (inner and/or outer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.3   TCP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.4   TCP Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.5   Summary of replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   4.  Analysis of change patterns of header fields . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.1   IP header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.1.1   IP Traffic-Class / Type-Of-Service (TOS) . . . . . . . 19
       4.1.2   ECN Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.1.3   IP Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.1.4   Don't Fragment (DF) flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       4.1.5   IP Hop-Limit / Time-To-Live (TTL)  . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.2   TCP header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       4.2.1   Sequence number  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       4.2.2   Acknowledgement number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.2.3   Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.2.4   Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       4.2.5   Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       4.2.6   Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       4.2.7   Urgent pointer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     4.3   Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       4.3.1   Options overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       4.3.2   Option field behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   5.  Other observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     5.1   Implicit acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     5.2   Shared data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     5.3   TCP header overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     5.4   Field independence and packet behavior . . . . . . . . . . 35
     5.5   Short-lived flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     5.6   Master Sequence Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     5.7   Size constraint for TCP options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   6.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 42



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


1.  Introduction

   This document describes the format of the TCP/IP header and the
   header field behavior (how fields vary within a TCP flow).  The
   description is presented in the context of its application to header
   compression.

   Since the IP header does exhibit slightly different behavior from
   that previously presented in RFC 3095 [36] for UDP and RTP, it is
   also included in this document.

   It is intentional that much of the classification text from RFC 3095
   [36] has been borrowed.  This is for easier reading rather than
   inserting many references to that document.

   Again based on the format presented in RFC 3095 [36] TCP/IP header
   fields are classified and analyzed in two steps.  First, we have a
   general classification in Section 2 where the fields are classified
   on the basis of stable knowledge and assumptions.  The general
   classification does not take into account the change characteristics
   of changing fields because those will vary more or less depending on
   the implementation and on the application used.  Section 3 considers
   how field values can be used to optimize short-lived flows.  A more
   detailed analysis of the change characteristics is then done in
   Section 4.  Finally, Section 5 summarizes with conclusions about how
   the various header fields should be handled by the header compression
   scheme to optimize compression and functionality.

   A general question raised by this analysis is that of what 'baseline'
   definition of all possible TCP/IP implementations is to be
   considered?  This review is based on an analysis of currently
   deployed TCP implementations supporting mechansims standardised by
   the IETF.

   The general requirement for transparency is also seen to be more
   interesting.  A number of recent proposals for extensions to TCP make
   use of some of the previously 'reserved' bits in the TCP packet
   header.  It is therefore clear that a 'reserved' bit cannot be taken
   to have a guaranteed zero value, but may change.  Ideally, this
   should be accommodated by the compression profile.

   There are a number of reserved bits which are available for future
   expansion.  Any treatment of field behavior cannot predict the future
   use of such bits, but we expect that they will be used at some point.
   Given this, a compression scheme can optimise for the current
   situation but should be capable of supporting any arbitrary usage of
   the reserved bits.  However, it is impossible to optimise for usage
   patterns that have yet to be defined.



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


2.  General classification

   The following definitions (and some text) are copied from RFC 3095
   [36] Appendix A.  Differences between IP field behavior between RFC
   3095 [36] (i.e.  IP/UDP/RTP behavior for audio and video
   applications) and this document have been identified.

   For the following, we define "session" to mean a TCP packet stream,
   being a series of packets with the same IP addresses and port
   numbers.  A packet flow is defined by certain fields (see STATIC-DEF
   below) and may be considered as a subset of a session.  See [36] for
   a fuller discussion of separation of sessions into streams of packets
   for header compression.

   At a general level, the header fields are separated into 5 classes:

   o  INFERRED
         These fields contain values that can be inferred from other
         values, for example the size of the frame carrying the packet,
         and thus do not have to be handled at all by the compression
         scheme.

   o  STATIC
         These fields are expected to be constant throughout the
         lifetime of the packet stream.  Static information must in some
         way be communicated once.

   o  STATIC-DEF
         STATIC fields whose values define a packet stream.  They are in
         general handled as STATIC.

   o  STATIC-KNOWN
         These STATIC fields are expected to have well-known values and
         therefore do not need to be communicated at all.

   o  CHANGING
         These fields are expected to vary in some way: randomly, within
         a limited value set or range, or in some other manner.

   In this section, each of the IP and TCP header fields is assigned to
   one of these classes.  For all fields except those classified as
   CHANGING, the motives for the classification are also stated.  In
   section 4, CHANGING fields are further examined and classified on the
   basis of their expected change behavior.

2.1  IP header fields





West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


2.1.1  IPv6 header fields


          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
          |        Field        | Size (bits) |      Class     |
          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
          | Version             |      4      |     STATIC     |
          | DSCP*               |      6      |   ALTERNATING  |
          | ECT flag*           |      1      |    CHANGING    |
          | CE  flag*           |      1      |    CHANGING    |
          | Flow Label          |     20      |   STATIC-DEF   |
          | Payload Length      |     16      |    INFERRED    |
          | Next Header         |      8      |     STATIC     |
          | Hop Limit           |      8      |    CHANGING    |
          | Source Address      |    128      |   STATIC-DEF   |
          | Destination Address |    128      |   STATIC-DEF   |
          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+

                      Figure 1: IPv6 header fields

    * differs from RFC 3095 [36]

   [The DSCP, ECT and CE flags were amalgamated into the Traffic Class
   octet in RFC 3095.]

   o  Version
         The version field states which IP version is used.  Packets
         with different values in this field must be handled by
         different IP stacks.  All packets of a packet stream must
         therefore be of the same IP version.  Accordingly, the field is
         classified as STATIC.

   o  Flow Label
         This field may be used to identify packets belonging to a
         specific packet stream.  If not used, the value should be set
         to zero.  Otherwise, all packets belonging to the same stream
         must have the same value in this field, it being one of the
         fields that define the stream.  The field is therefore
         classified as STATIC-DEF.

   o  Payload Length
         Information about packet length (and, consequently, payload
         length) is expected to be provided by the link layer.  The
         field is therefore classified as INFERRED.

   o  Next Header
         This field will usually have the same value in all packets of a
         packet stream.  It encodes the type of the subsequent header.



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         Only when extension headers are sometimes present and sometimes
         not, will the field change its value during the lifetime of the
         stream.  The field is therefore classified as STATIC.
         The classification of STATIC is inherited from RFC 3095 [36].
         However, it should be pointed out that the next header field is
         actually determined by the type of the following header.  Thus,
         it might be more appropriate to view this as an inference,
         although this depends upon the specific implementation of the
         compression scheme.

   o  Source and Destination addresses
         These fields are part of the definition of a stream and must
         thus be constant for all packets in the stream.  The fields are
         therefore classified as STATIC-DEF.
         This might be considered as a slightly simplistic view.  In
         this document, the IP addresses are associated with the
         transport layer connection and assumed to be part of the
         definition of a flow.  More complex flow-separation could, of
         course, be considered (see also RFC 3095 [36] for more
         discussion of this issue).  Where tunneling is being performed,
         then the use of the IP addresses in outer tunnel headers is
         also assumed to be STATIC-DEF.

   Total size of the fields in each class:


                      +--------------+--------------+
                      | Class        | Size (octets)|
                      +--------------+--------------+
                      | INFERRED     |      2       |
                      | STATIC       |      1.5     |
                      | STATIC-DEF   |     34.5     |
                      | STATIC-KNOWN |      0       |
                      | CHANGING     |      2       |
                      +--------------+--------------+

                         Figure 2: Field sizes


2.1.2  IPv4 header fields











West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


           +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
           | Field               | Size (bits) |      Class     |
           +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
           | Version             |      4      |      STATIC    |
           | Header Length       |      4      |   STATIC-KNOWN |
           | DSCP*               |      6      |   ALTERNATING  |
           | ECT flag*           |      1      |     CHANGING   |
           | CE  flag*           |      1      |     CHANGING   |
           | Packet Length       |     16      |     INFERRED   |
           | Identification      |     16      |     CHANGING   |
           | Reserved flag*      |      1      |     CHANGING   |
           | Don't Fragment flag*|      1      |     CHANGING   |
           | More Fragments flag |      1      |   STATIC-KNOWN |
           | Fragment Offset     |     13      |   STATIC-KNOWN |
           | Time To Live        |      8      |     CHANGING   |
           | Protocol            |      8      |      STATIC    |
           | Header Checksum     |     16      |     INFERRED   |
           | Source Address      |     32      |    STATIC-DEF  |
           | Destination Address |     32      |    STATIC-DEF  |
           +---------------------+-------------+----------------+

                      Figure 3: IPv4 header fields

   * differs from RFC 3095 [36]

   [The DSCP, ECT and CE flags were amalgamated into the TOS octet in
   RFC 3095.
   The DF flag behavior is considered later.
   The reserved field is discussed below.]
   o  Version
         The version field states which IP version is used.  Packets
         with different values in this field must be handled by
         different IP stacks.  All packets of a packet stream must
         therefore be of the same IP version.  Accordingly, the field is
         classified as STATIC.
   o  Header Length
         As long as no options are present in the IP header, the header
         length is constant and well known.  If there are options, the
         fields would be STATIC, but it is assumed here that there are
         no options.  The field is therefore classified as STATIC-KNOWN.
   o  Packet Length
         Information about packet length is expected to be provided by
         the link layer.  The field is therefore classified as INFERRED.
   o  Flags
         The Reserved flag must be set to zero, as defined in RFC 791
         [1].  In RFC 3095 [36] the field is therefore classified as
         STATIC-KNOWN.  However, it is expected that reserved fields may
         be used at some future point.  It is undesirable to select an



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         encoding that would preclude the use of a compression profile
         for a future change in the use of reserved fields.  For this
         reason the alternative encoding of CHANGING is used.  (A
         compression profile can, of course, still optimise for the
         current situation, where the field value is known to be 0).
         The More Fragments (MF) flag is expected to be zero because
         fragmentation is, ideally, not expected.  However, it is also
         understood that some scenarios (for example some tunnelling
         architectures) do cause fragmentation.  In general, though,
         fragmentation is not expected to be common in the Internet due
         to a combination of initial MSS negotiation and subsequent use
         of path-MTU discovery.  RFC 3095 [36] points out that, for RTP,
         only the first fragment will contain the transport layer
         protocol header; subsequent fragments would have to be
         compressed with a different profile.  This is also obviously
         the case for TCP.  If fragmentation were to occur then the
         first fragment, by definition, will be relatively large,
         minimizing the header overhead.  Subsequent fragments would be
         compressed with another profile.  It is therefore considered
         undesirable to optimise for fragmentation in performing header
         compression.  The More Fragments flag is therefore classified
         as STATIC-KNOWN.
   o  Fragment Offset
         Under the assumption that no fragmentation occurs, the fragment
         offset is always zero.  The field is therefore classified as
         STATIC-KNOWN.  Even if fragmentation were to be further
         considered, then only the first fragment would contain the TCP
         header and the fragment offset of this packet would still be
         zero.
   o  Protocol
         This field will usually have the same value in all packets of a
         packet stream.  It encodes the type of the subsequent header.
         Only where the sequence of headers changes (e.g.  an extension
         header is inserted or deleted; or a tunnel header is added or
         removed), will the field change its value.  The field is
         therefore classified as STATIC.  Whether or not such a change
         would cause the sequence of packets to be treated as a new flow
         (for header compression) is an issue for profile design.  ROHC
         profiles must be able to cope with extension headers and
         tunnelling, but the choice of strategy is outside the scope of
         this document.
   o  Header Checksum
         The header checksum protects individual hops from processing a
         corrupted header.  When almost all IP header information is
         compressed away, there is no point in having this additional
         checksum; instead it can be regenerated at the decompressor
         side.  The field is therefore classified as INFERRED.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         We note that the TCP checksum does not protect the whole TCP/IP
         header, but only the TCP pseudo-header (and the payload).
         Compare this with ROHC [36], which uses a CRC to verify the
         uncompressed header.  Given the need to validate the complete
         TCP/IP header; the cost of computing the TCP checksum over the
         entire payload; and known weaknesses in the TCP checksum [41],
         an additional check is necessary.  Therefore, it is highly
         desirable that some additional checksum (such as a CRC) will be
         used to validate correct decompression.
   o  Source and Destination addresses
         These fields are part of the definition of a stream and must
         thus be constant for all packets in the stream.  The fields are
         therefore classified as STATIC-DEF.

   Total size of the fields in each class:


                      +--------------+--------------+
                      | Class        | Size (octets)|
                      +--------------+--------------+
                      | INFERRED     |      4       |
                      | STATIC*      |      1.5     |
                      | STATIC-DEF   |      8       |
                      | STATIC-KNOWN*|      2.25    |
                      | CHANGING*    |      4.25    |
                      +--------------+--------------+

                         Figure 4: Field sizes

   * differs from RFC 3095 [36]

2.2  TCP header fields



















West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
          | Field               | Size (bits) |      Class     |
          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+
          | Source Port         |     16      |    STATIC-DEF  |
          | Destination Port    |     16      |    STATIC-DEF  |
          | Sequence Number     |     32      |     CHANGING   |
          | Acknowledgement Num |     32      |     CHANGING   |
          | Data Offset         |      4      |     INFERRED   |
          | Reserved            |      4      |     CHANGING   |
          | CWR flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | ECE flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | URG flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | ACK flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | PSH flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | RST flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | SYN flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | FIN flag            |      1      |     CHANGING   |
          | Window              |     16      |     CHANGING   |
          | Checksum            |     16      |     CHANGING   |
          | Urgent Pointer      |     16      |     CHANGING   |
          | Options             |   0(-352)   |     CHANGING   |
          +---------------------+-------------+----------------+

                      Figure 5: TCP header fields

   o  Source and Destination ports
         These fields are part of the definition of a stream and must
         thus be constant for all packets in the stream.  The fields are
         therefore classified as STATIC-DEF.
   o  Data Offset
         The number of 4 octet words in the TCP header, thus indicating
         The start of the data.  It is always a multiple of 4 octets.
         It can be re-constructed from the length of any options and
         thus it is not necessary to carry this explicitly.  The field
         is therefore classified as INFERRED.

2.3  Summary for IP/TCP

   Summarizing this for IP/TCP one obtains












West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


          +----------------+----------------+----------------+
          | Class \ IP ver | IPv6 (octets)  | IPv4 (octets)  |
          +----------------+----------------+----------------+
          | INFERRED       |   2 + 4 bits   |   4 + 4 bits   |
          | STATIC         |   1 + 4 bits   |   1 + 4 bits   |
          | STATIC-DEF     |  38 + 4 bits   |      12        |
          | STATIC-KNOWN   |       -        |   2 + 2 bits   |
          | CHANGING       |  17 + 4 bits   |  19 + 6 bits   |
          +----------------+----------------+----------------+
          | Totals         |     60         |     40         |
          +----------------+----------------+----------------+

                     Figure 6: Overall field sizes

    (excludes options, which are all classified as CHANGING)

3.  Classification of replicable header fields

   Where multiple flows either overlap in time or occur sequentially
   within a short space of time there can be a great deal of similarity
   in header field values.  Such commonality of field values is
   reflected in the compression context.  Thus, it should be possible to
   utilise commonality between fields across different flows to improve
   the compression ratio.  In order to do this, it is important to
   understand the 'replicable' characteristics of the various header
   fields.

   The key concept is that of 'replication', where an existing context
   is used as a baseline and replicated to initialise a new context.
   Those fields that are the same are then automatically initialised in
   the new context.  Those that have changed will be updated or
   overwritten with values from the initialisation packet that triggered
   the replication.  This section considers the commonality between
   fields in different flows.

   It should be noted, however, that replication is based on contexts
   (rather than just field values) and so compressor created fields that
   are part of the context may also be included.  These, of course, are
   dependent upon the nature of the compression protocol (ROHC profile)
   being applied.

   A brief analysis of the relationship of TCP/IP fields among
   'replicable' packet streams follows.
         'N/A' -- The field need not be considered in the replication
            process as it is inferred or known 'a priori' (and,
            therefore, does not appear in the context).





West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         'No' -- The field cannot be replicated since its change pattern
            between two packet flows is uncorrelated.
         'Yes' -- The field may be replicated.  This does not guarantee
            that the field value will be the same across two candidate
            streams, only that it might be possible to exploit
            replication to increase the compression ratio.  Specific
            encoding methods can be used to improve the compression
            efficiency.

3.1  IPv4 Header (inner and/or outer)

          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Field                 | Class         | Replicable |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Version               | STATIC        | N/A        |
          | Header Length         | STATIC-KNOWN  | N/A        |
          | DSCP                  | ALTERNATING   | No  (1)    |
          | ECT flag              | CHANGING      | No  (2)    |
          | CE flag               | CHANGING      | No  (2)    |
          | Packet Length         | INFERRED      | N/A        |
          | Identification        | CHANGING      | Yes (3)    |
          | Reserved flag         | CHANGING      | No  (4)    |
          | Don't Fragment flag   | CHANGING      | Yes (5)    |
          | More Fragments flag   | STATIC-KNOWN  | N/A        |
          | Fragment Offset       | STATIC-KNOWN  | N/A        |
          | Time To Live          | CHANGING      | Yes        |
          | Protocol              | STATIC        | N/A        |
          | Header Checksum       | INFERRED      | N/A        |
          | Source Address        | STATIC-DEF    | Yes        |
          | Destination Address   | STATIC-DEF    | Yes        |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+

                         Figure 7: IPv4 header

   (1) The DSCP is marked based on the application's requirements.  If
      it can be assumed that replicable connections belong to the same
      diffserv class, then it is likely that the DSCP will be
      replicable.  The DSCP can be set not only by the sender but by any
      packet marker.  Thus, a flow may have a number of DSCP values at
      different points in the network.  However, header compression
      operates on a point-to-point link and so would expect to see a
      relatively stable value.  If re-marking is being done based on the
      state of a meter) then the value may change mid-flow.  Overall,
      though, we expect supporting replication of the DSCP to be useful
      for header compression.






West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   (2) It is not possible for the ECN bits to be replicated (note that
      use of the ECN nonce scheme [20] is anticipated).  However, it
      seems likely that all TCP flows between ECN-capable hosts will use
      ECN, the use (or not) of ECN for flows between the same end-points
      might be considered replicable.  See also note (4).
   (3) The replicable context for this field includes the IP-ID, NBO,
      and RND flags (as described in ROHC RTP).  This highlights that
      the replication is of the context, rather than just the header
      field values and, as such, needs to be considered based on the
      exact nature of compression applied to each field.
   (4) Since the possible future behavior of the 'Reserved Flag' cannot
      be predicted, it is not considered as replicable.  However, it
      might be expected that the behavior of the reserved flag between
      the same end-points will be similar.  In this case, any selection
      of packet formats (for example) based on this behavior might carry
      across to the new flow.  In the case of packet formats, this can
      probably be considered as a compressor-local decision.
   (5) In theory, the DF bit may be replicable.  However, this is not
      guaranteed and, in practice, it is unlikely to be useful to do
      this.  From the perspective of header compression, having to
      indicate whether or not a 1-bit flag should be replicated or
      specified explicitly is likely to require more bits than simply
      conveying the value of the flag.  We do not rule out DF
      replication.

3.2  IPv6 Header (inner and/or outer)

          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Field                 | Class         | Replicable |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Version               | STATIC        | N/A        |
          | Traffic Class         | CHANGING      | Yes (1)    |
          | ECT flag              | CHANGING      | No  (2)    |
          | CE flag               | CHANGING      | No  (2)    |
          | Flow Label            | STATIC-DEF    | N/A        |
          | Payload Length        | INFERRED      | N/A        |
          | Next Header           | STATIC        | N/A        |
          | Hop Limit             | CHANGING      | Yes        |
          | Source Address        | STATIC-DEF    | Yes        |
          | Destination Address   | STATIC-DEF    | Yes        |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+

                         Figure 8: IPv6 header

   (1) See comment about DSCP field for IPv4, above.






West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   (2) See comment about ECT and CE flags for IPv4, above.

3.3  TCP Header

          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Field                 | Class         | Replicable |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+
          | Source Port           | STATIC-DEF    |  Yes (1)   |
          | Destination Port      | STATIC-DEF    |  Yes (1)   |
          | Sequence Number       | CHANGING      |  No  (2)   |
          | Acknowledgement Number| CHANGING      |  No        |
          | Data Offset           | INFERRED      |  N/A       |
          | Reserved Bits         | CHANGING      |  No  (3)   |
          | Flags                 |               |            |
          |         CWR           | CHANGING      |  No  (4)   |
          |         ECE           | CHANGING      |  No  (4)   |
          |         URG           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          |         ACK           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          |         PSH           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          |         RST           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          |         SYN           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          |         FIN           | CHANGING      |  No        |
          | Window                | CHANGING      |  Yes       |
          | Checksum              | CHANGING      |  No        |
          | Urgent Pointer        | CHANGING      |  Yes (5)   |
          +-----------------------+---------------+------------+

                          Figure 9: TCP Header

   (1) On the server side, the port number is likely to be a well-known
      value.  On the client side, the port number is generally selected
      by the stack automatically.  Whether the port number is replicable
      depends upon how the stack chooses the port number.  Whilst most
      implementations use a simple scheme which sequentially picks the
      next available port number, it may not be desirable to to rely
      upon this behavior.
   (2) With the recommendation (and expected deployment) of TCP Initial
      Sequence Number randomization, defined in RFC 1948 [10], it will
      be impossible to share the sequence number.  Thus, this field will
      not be regarded as replicable.
   (3) See comment (4) for the IPv4 header, above.
   (4) See comment (2) on ECN flags for the IPv4 header, above.
   (5) The urgent pointer is very rarely used.  This means that, in
      practice, the field may be considered replicable.







West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


3.4  TCP Options

          +---------------------------+--------------+------------+
          | Option                    | SYN-only (1) | Replicable |
          +---------------------------+--------------+------------+
          | End of Option List        | No           | No   (2)   |
          | No-Operation              | No           | No   (2)   |
          | Maximum Segment Size      | Yes          | Yes        |
          | Window Scale              | Yes          | Yes        |
          | SACK-Permitted            | Yes          | Yes        |
          | SACK                      | No           | No         |
          | Timestamp                 | No           | No         |
          +---------------------------+--------------+------------+

                         Figure 10: TCP Options

   (1) This indicates whether the option only appears in SYN packet or
      not.  Options that are not 'SYN-only' may appear in any packet.
      Many TCP options are used only in SYN packets.  Some options, such
      as MSS, Window Scale, SACK-Permitted etc., will tend to have the
      same value among replicable packet streams.
      Thus, to support context sharing, the compressor should maintain
      such TCP options in the context (even though they only appear in
      the SYN segment).
   (2) Since these options have fixed values, they could be regarded as
      replicable.  However, the only interesting thing to convey about
      these options is their presence: if it is known that such an
      option exists, its value is defined.

3.5  Summary of replication

   From the above analysis, it can be seen that there are reasonable
   grounds for exploiting redundancy between flows, as well as between
   packets within a flow.  Simply consider the advantage of being able
   to elide the source and destination addresses for a repeated
   connection between two IPv6 endpoints.  There will also be a cost (in
   terms of complexity and robustness) for replicating contexts, and
   this must be considered when deciding what constitutes an appropriate
   solution.

   The final point to note for the use of replication is that it
   requires the compressor to have a suitable degree of confidence that
   the source data is present and correct at the decompressor.  This may
   place some restrictions on which of the 'changing' fields, in
   particular, can be utilised during replication.






West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


4.  Analysis of change patterns of header fields

   To design suitable mechanisms for efficient compression of all header
   fields, their change patterns must be analyzed.  For this reason, an
   extended classification is done based on the general classification
   in 2, considering the fields which were labeled CHANGING in that
   classification.

   The CHANGING fields are separated into five different subclasses:

   o  STATIC
         These are fields that were classified as CHANGING on a general
         basis, but are classified as STATIC here due to certain
         additional assumptions.

   o  SEMISTATIC
         These fields are STATIC most of the time.  However,
         occasionally the value changes but reverts to its original
         value after a known number of packets.

   o  RARELY-CHANGING (RC)
         These are fields that change their values occasionally and then
         keep their new values.

   o  ALTERNATING
         These fields alternate between a small number of different
         values.

   o  IRREGULAR
         These, finally, are the fields for which no useful change
         pattern can be identified.

   To further expand the classification possibilities without increasing
   complexity, the classification can be done either according to the
   values of the field and/or according to the values of the deltas for
   the field.

   When the classification is done, other details are also stated
   regarding possible additional knowledge about the field values and/or
   field deltas, according to the classification.  For fields classified
   as STATIC or SEMISTATIC, the case could be that the value of the
   field is not only STATIC but also well KNOWN a priori (two states for
   SEMISTATIC fields).  For fields with non-irregular change behavior,
   it could be known that changes usually are within a LIMITED range
   compared to the maximal change for the field.  For other fields, the
   values are completely UNKNOWN.

   Figure 11 classifies all the CHANGING fields on the basis of their



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   expected change patterns.  (4) refers to IPv4 fields and (6) refers
   to IPv6.


   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | Field                  | Value/Delta |    Class    |  Knowledge  |
   +========================+=============+=============+=============+
   | DSCP(4) / Tr.Class(6)  | Value       | ALTERNATING |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | IP ECT flag(4)         | Value       |      RC     |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | IP CE flag(4)          | Value       |      RC     |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   |             Sequential | Delta       |    STATIC   |    KNOWN    |
   |             -----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | IP Id(4)     Seq. jump | Delta       |      RC     |   LIMITED   |
   |             -----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   |                 Random | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | IP DF flag(4)          | Value       |      RC     |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | IP TTL(4) / Hop Lim(6) | Value       | ALTERNATING |   LIMITED   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Sequence Number    | Delta       |  IRREGULAR  |   LIMITED   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Acknowledgement Num| Delta       |  IRREGULAR  |   LIMITED   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Reserved           | Value       |      RC     |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP flags              |             |             |             |
   |     ECN flags          | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     CWR flag           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     ECE flag           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     URG flag           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     ACK flag           | Value       |  SEMISTATIC |    KNOWN    |
   |     PSH flag           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     RST flag           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   |     SYN flag           | Value       |  SEMISTATIC |    KNOWN    |
   |     FIN flag           | Value       |  SEMISTATIC |    KNOWN    |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Window             | Value       | ALTERNATING |    KNOWN    |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Checksum           | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Urgent Pointer     | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |    KNOWN    |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
   | TCP Options            | Value       |  IRREGULAR  |   UNKNOWN   |
   +------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


              Figure 11: Classification of CHANGING fields

   The following subsections discuss the various header fields in
   detail.  Note that table 1 and the discussions below do not consider
   changes caused by loss or reordering before the compression point.

4.1  IP header

4.1.1  IP Traffic-Class / Type-Of-Service (TOS)

   The Traffic-Class (IPv6) or Type-Of-Service/DSCP (IPv4) field might
   be expected to change during the lifetime of a packet stream.  This
   analysis considers several RFCs that describe modifications to the
   original RFC 791 [1].

   The TOS byte was initially described in RFC 791 [1] as 3 bits of
   precedence followed by 3 bits of TOS and 2 reserved bits (defined to
   be 0).  RFC 1122 [22] extended this to specify 5 bits of TOS,
   although the meanings of the additional 2 bits were not defined.  RFC
   1349 [24] defined the 4th bit of TOS to be 'minimize monetary cost'.
   The next significant change was in RFC 2474 [15] which reworked the
   TOS octet as 6 bits of DSCP (DiffServ Code Point) plus 2 unused bits.
   Most recently RFC 2780 [35] identified the 2 reserved bits in the TOS
   or traffic class octet for experimental use with ECN.

   For the purposes of this classification, it is therefore proposed to
   classify the TOS (or traffic class) octet as 6 bits for the DSCP and
   2 additional bits.  These 2 bits may be expected to be 0 or to
   contain ECN data.  From a future proofing perspective, it is
   preferable to assume the use of ECN, especially with respect to TCP.

   It is also considered important that the profile works with legacy
   stacks, since these will be in existence for some considerable time
   to come.  For simplicity, this will be considered as 6 bits of TOS
   information and 2 bits of ECN data, so the fields are always
   considered to be structured the same way.

   The DSCP (as for TOS in ROHC RTP) is not expected to change
   frequently (although it could change mid-flow, for example as a
   result of a route change).

4.1.2  ECN Flags

   Initially we describe the ECN flags as specified in RFC 2481 [16] and
   RFC 3168 [17].  Subsequently, a suggested update is described which
   would alter the behavior of the flags.

   In RFC 2481 [16] there are 2 separate flags, the ECT (ECN Capable



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   Transport) flag and the CE (Congestion Experienced) flag.  The ECT
   flag, if negotiated by the TCP stack, will be '1' for all data
   packets and '0' for all 'pure acknowledgement' packets.  This means
   that the behavior of the ECT flag is linked to behavior in the TCP
   stack.  Whether this can be exploited for compression is not clear.

   The CE flag is only used if ECT is set to '1'.  It is set to '0' by
   the sender and can be set to '1' by an ECN capable router in the
   network to indicate congestion.  Thus the CE flag is expected to be
   randomly set to '1' with a probability dependent upon the congestion
   state of the network and the position of the compressor in the path.
   So, a compressor located close to the receiver in a congested network
   will see the CE bit set frequently, but a compressor located close to
   a sender will rarely, if ever, see the CE bit set to '1'.

   A recent, experimental proposal [20] suggests an alternative view of
   these 2 bits.  This considers the two bits together as having 4
   possible codepoints.  Meanings are then assigned to the codepoints:

      00      Not ECN capable
      01      ECN capable, no congestion [known as ECT(0)]
      10      ECN capable, no congestion [known as ECT(1)]
      11      Congestion experienced

   The use of 2 codepoints for signaling ECT allows the sender to detect
   when a receiver is not reliably echoing congestion information.

   For the purposes of compression, this update means that ECT(0) and
   ECT(1) are equally likely (for an ECN capable flow) and that '11'
   will be relatively rarely seen.  The probability of seeing a
   congestion indication is discussed above in the description of the CE
   flag.

   It is suggested that, for the purposes of compression, ECN with
   nonces is assumed as the baseline, although the compression scheme
   must be able to transparently compress the original ECN scheme.

4.1.3  IP Identification

   The Identification field (IP ID) of the IPv4 header is there to
   identify which fragments constitute a datagram when reassembling
   fragmented datagrams.  The IPv4 specification does not specify
   exactly how this field is to be assigned values, only that each
   packet should get an IP ID that is unique for the source-destination
   pair and protocol for the time the datagram (or any of its fragments)
   could be alive in the network.  This means that assignment of IP ID
   values can be done in various ways, which we have separated into
   three classes:



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   o  Sequential jump
         This is the most common assignment policy in today's IP stacks.
         A single IP ID counter is used for all packet streams.  When
         the sender is running more than one packet stream
         simultaneously, the IP ID can increase by more than one between
         packets in a stream.  The IP ID values will be much more
         predictable and require less bits to transfer than random
         values, and the packet-to-packet increment (determined by the
         number of active outgoing packet streams and sending
         frequencies) will usually be limited.
   o  Random
         Some IP stacks assign IP ID values using a pseudo-random number
         generator.  There is thus no correlation between the ID values
         of subsequent datagrams.  Therefore there is no way to predict
         the IP ID value for the next datagram.  For header compression
         purposes, this means that the IP ID field needs to be sent
         uncompressed with each datagram, resulting in two extra octets
         of header.  IP stacks in cellular terminals that need optimum
         header compression efficiency should not use this IP ID
         assignment policy.
   o  Sequential
         This assignment policy keeps a separate counter for each
         outgoing packet stream and thus the IP ID value will increment
         by one for each packet in the stream, except at wrap around.
         Therefore, the delta value of the field is constant and well
         known a priori.  This assignment policy is the most desirable
         for header compression purposes.  However, its usage is not as
         common as it perhaps should be.
         In order to avoid violating RFC 791 [1], packets sharing the
         same IP address pair and IP protocol number cannot use the same
         IP ID values.  Therefore, implementations of sequential
         policies must make the ID number spaces disjoint for packet
         streams of the same IP protocol going between the same pair of
         nodes.  This can be done in a number of ways, all of which
         introduce occasional jumps, and thus makes the policy less than
         perfectly sequential.  For header compression purposes less
         frequent jumps are preferred.

   It should be noted that the ID is an IPv4 mechanism and is therefore
   not a problem for IPv6.  For IPv4 the ID could be handled in three
   different ways.  First, we have the inefficient but reliable solution
   where the ID field is sent as-is in all packets, increasing the
   compressed headers by two octets.  This is the best way to handle the
   ID field if the sender uses random assignment of the ID field.
   Second, there can be solutions with more flexible mechanisms
   requiring less bits for the ID handling as long as sequential jump
   assignment is used.  Such solutions will probably require even more
   bits if random assignment is used by the sender.  Knowledge about the



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   sender's assignment policy could therefore be useful when choosing
   between the two solutions above.  Finally, even for IPv4, header
   compression could be designed without any additional information for
   the ID field included in compressed headers.  To use such schemes, it
   must be known which assignment policy for the ID field is being used
   by the sender.  That might not be possible to know, which implies
   that the applicability of such solutions is very uncertain.  However,
   designers of IPv4 stacks for cellular terminals should use an
   assignment policy close to sequential.

   With regard to TCP compression, the behavior of the IP ID field is
   considered to be essentially the same.  However, in RFC 3095 [36] it
   is noted that the IP ID is generally inferred from the RTP Sequence
   Number.  There is no obvious candidate in the TCP case for a field to
   offer this 'master sequence number' role.

   Clearly from a busy server the observed behavior may well be quite
   erratic.  This is a case where the ability to share the IP
   compression context between a number of flows (between the same end-
   points) could offer potential benefits.  However, this would only
   have any real impact where there were a large number of flows between
   one machine and the server.  If context sharing is being considered,
   then it is preferable to share the IP part of the context.

4.1.4  Don't Fragment (DF) flag

   Path-MTU discovery RFC 1191 for IPv4 [6] and RFC 1981 for IPv6 [11],
   is widely deployed for TCP (in contrast to little current use for UDP
   packet streams).  This employs the DF flag value of '1' to detect the
   need for fragmentation in the end-to-end path and to probe the
   minimum MTU along the network path.  End hosts using this technique
   may be expected to send all packets with DF set to '1', although a
   host may end PMTU discovery by clearing the DF bit to '0'.  Thus, for
   the purpose of compression, we expect the field value to be stable.

4.1.5  IP Hop-Limit / Time-To-Live (TTL)

   The Hop-Limit (IPv6) or Time-To-Live (IPv4) field is expected to be
   constant during the lifetime of a packet stream or to alternate
   between a limited number of values due to route changes.

4.2  TCP header

   Any discussion of compressability of TCP fields borrows heavily from
   RFC 1144 [23].  However, the premise of how the compression is
   performed is slightly different and the protocol has evolved slightly
   in the intervening time.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


4.2.1  Sequence number

   An understanding of the sequence and acknowledgement number behavior
   are essential for a TCP compression scheme.

   At the simplest level the behavior of the sequence number can be
   described relatively easily.  However, there are a number of
   complicating factors that also need to be considered.

   For transferring in-sequence data packets, the sequence number will
   increment for each packet by between 0 and an upper limit defined by
   the MSS (Maximum Segment Size) and, if being used, Path-MTU
   discovery.

   There are common MSS values, but these can be quite variable and
   unpredictable for any given flow.  Given this variability and the
   range of window sizes it is hard (compared with the RTP case, for
   example) to select a 'one size fits all' encoding for the sequence
   number.  (The same argument applies equally to the acknowledgement
   number).

   We note that the increment of the sequence number in a packet is the
   size of the data payload of that packet (including the SYN and FIN
   flags).  This is, of course, exactly the relationship that RFC 1144
   [23] exploits to compress the sequence number in the most efficient
   case.  This technique may not be directly applicable to a robust
   solution, but may be a useful relationship to consider.

   However, at any point on the path (i.e.  wherever a compressor might
   be deployed), the sequence number can be anywhere within a range
   defined by the TCP window.  This is a combination of a number of
   values (buffer space at the sender; advertised buffer size at the
   receiver; and TCP congestion control algorithms).  Missing packets or
   retransmissions can cause the TCP sequence number to fluctuate within
   the limits of this window.

   It is desirable to be able to predict the sequence number from some
   regularity.  However, this also appears to be difficult to do.  For
   example, during bulk data transfer the sequence number will tend to
   go up by 1 MSS per packet (assuming no packet loss).  Higher layer
   values have been seen to have an impact as well, where sequence
   number behavior has been observed with an 8 kbyte repeating pattern
   -- 5 segments of 1460 bytes followed by 1 segment of 892 bytes.  The
   implementation of TCP and hte management of buffers within a protocol
   stack can affect the behavior of the sequence number.

   It may be possible to track the TCP window by the compressor,
   allowing it to bound the size of these jumps.



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   For interactive flows (for example telnet), the sequence number will
   change by small irregular amounts.  In this case the Nagle algorithm
   [3] commonly applies, coalescing small packets where possible to
   reduce the basic header overhead.  This may also mean that it is less
   likely that predictable changes in the sequence number will occur.
   The Nagle algorithm is an optimisation and not required to be used
   (applications can disable its use).  However, it is turned on by
   default in all common TCP implementations.

   It is also noted that the SYN and FIN flags (which have to be
   acknowledged) consume 1 byte of sequence space.

4.2.2  Acknowledgement number

   Much of the information about the sequence number applies equally to
   the acknowledgement number.  However, there are some important
   differences.

   For bulk data transfers there will tend to be 1 acknowledgement for
   every 2 data segments.  The algorithm is specified in RFC 2581 [18].
   An ACK need not always be sent immediately on receipt of a data
   segment, but must be sent within 500ms and should be generated for at
   least every second full sized segment (MSS) of received data.  It may
   be seen from this that the delta for the acknowledgement number is
   roughly twice that of the sequence number.  This is not always the
   case and the discussion about sequence number irregularity should be
   applied.

   As an aside, a common implementation bug is 'stretch ACKs' [38]
   (acknowledgements may be generated less frequently than every two
   full-size data segments).  This pattern can also occur following loss
   on the return path.

   Since the acknowledgement number is cumulative, dropped packets in
   the forward path will result in the acknowledgement number remaining
   constant for a time in the reverse direction.  Retransmission of a
   dropped segment can then cause a substantial jump in the
   acknowledgement number.  These jumps in acknowledgement number are
   bounded by the TCP window, just as for the jumps in sequence number.
   In the acknowledgement case, information about the advertised
   received window gives a bound to the size of any ACK jump.

4.2.3  Reserved

   This field is reserved and as such might be expected to be zero.
   This can no longer be assumed due to future proofing as it is only a
   matter of time before a suggestion for using the flag is made.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


4.2.4  Flags
   o  ECN-E (Explicit Congestion Notification)
         '1' to echo CE bit in IP header.  Will be set in several
         consecutive headers (until 'acknowledged' by CWR)
         If ECN nonces get used, then there will be a 'nonce-sum' (NS)
         bit in the flags, as well.  Again, transparency of the reserved
         bits is crucial for future-proofing this compression scheme.
         From an efficiency/compression standpoint, the NS bit will
         either be unused [always 0] or randomly changing).  The
         nonce-sum is the 1-bit sum of the ECT codepoints, as described
         in [20].
   o  CWR  (Congestion Window Reduced)
         '1' to signal congestion window reduced on ECN.  Will generally
         be set in individual packets.  The flag will be set once per
         loss event.  Thus, the probability of it being set is
         proportional to the degree of congestion in the network, but
         less likely to be set than the CE flag.
   o  ECE  (Echo Congestion Experience)
         If 'congestion experienced' is signaled on a received IP
         header, this is echoed through the ECE bit in segments sent by
         the receiver until acknowledged by seeing the CWR bit set.
         Clearly in periods of high congestion and/or long RTT, this
         flag will be frequently set to '1'.
      During connection open (SYN and SYN/ACK packets) the ECN bits have
      special meaning:
      CWR + ECN-E are both set with SYN to indicate desire to use ECN
      CWR only is set in SYN-ACK to agree ECN
      (The difference in bit-patterns for the negotiation is so that it
      will work with broken stacks that reflect the value of reserved
      bits)
   o  URG  (Urgent Flag)
         '1' to indicate urgent data [unlikely with any flag other than
         ACK]
   o  ACK  (Acknowledgement)
         '1' for all except the initial 'SYN' packet
   o  PSH  (Push Function Field)
         generally accepted to be randomly '0' or '1'.  However, may be
         biased more to one value than the other (this is largely down
         to the implementation of the stack)
   o  RST  (Reset Connection)
         '1' to reset a connection [unlikely with any flag other than
         ACK]
   o  SYN  (Synchronize Sequence Number)
         '1' for the SYN/SYN-ACK only at the start of a connection
   o  FIN  (End of Data : FINished)
         '1' to indicate 'no more data' [unlikely with any flag other
         than ACK]




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


4.2.5  Checksum

   Carried as the end-to-end check for the TCP data.  See RFC 1144 [23]
   for a discussion of why this should be carried.  A header compression
   scheme should not rely upon the TCP checksum for robustness, though,
   and should apply appropriate error-detection mechanisms of its own.
   The TCP checksum has to be considered as randomly changing.

4.2.6  Window

   May oscillate randomly between 0 and the receiver's window limit (for
   the connection).

   In practice, the window will either not change, or may alternate
   between a relatively small number of values.  Particularly when
   closing (the value is getting smaller), the change in window is
   likely to be related to the segment size, but it is not clear that
   this necessarily offers any compression advantage.  When the window
   is opening, the effect of 'Silly-Window Syndrome' avoidance should be
   remembered.  This prevents the window opening by small amounts that
   would encourage the sender to clock out small segments.

   When thinking about what fields might change in a sequence of TCP
   segments, it should be noted that the receiver can generate 'window
   update' segments in which only the window advertisement changes.

4.2.7  Urgent pointer

   From a compression point of view, the Urgent Pointer is interesting
   because it offers an example where 'semantically identical'
   compression is not the same as 'bitwise identical'.  This is because
   the value of the Urgent Pointer is only valid if the URG flag is set.

   However, the TCP checksum must be passed transparently, in order to
   maintain its end-to-end integrity checking property.  Since the TCP
   checksum includes the Urgent Pointer in its coverage, this enforces
   bitwise transparency of the Urgent Pointer.  Thus, the issue of
   'semantic' vs 'bitwise' identity is presented as a note: the Urgent
   Pointer must be compressed in a way that preserves its value.

   If the URG flag is set, then this pointer indicates the end of the
   urgent data and so can point to anywhere in the window.  This may be
   set (and changing) over several segments.  Note that urgent data is
   rarely used, since it is not a particularly clean way of managing
   out-of-band data.






West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


4.3  Options

   Options occupy space at the end of the TCP header.  All options are
   included in the checksum.  An option may begin on any byte boundary.
   The TCP header must be padded with zeros to make the header length a
   multiple of 32 bits.

   Optional header fields are identified by an option kind field.
   Options 0 and 1 are exactly one octet that is their kind field.  All
   other options have their one octet kind field, followed by a one
   octet length field, followed by length-2 octets of option data.

4.3.1  Options overview

   The IANA provides the authoritative list of TCP options.  Figure 12
   describes the current allocations at the time of publication.  Any
   new option would have a 'kind' value assigned by IANA.  The list is
   available at [21].  Where applicable, the associated RFC is also
   cited.


   +------+--------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+
   | Kind | Length |               Meaning              |    RFC   | Use |
   |      |(octets)|                                    |          |     |
   +------+--------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+
   |   0  |    -   | End of Option List                 | RFC 793  |  *  |
   |   1  |    -   | No-Operation                       | RFC 793  |  *  |
   |   2  |    4   | Maximum Segment Size               | RFC 793  |  *  |
   |   3  |    3   | WSopt - Window Scale               | RFC 1323 |  *  |
   |   4  |    2   | SACK Permitted                     | RFC 2018 |  *  |
   |   5  |    N   | SACK                               | RFC 2018 |  *  |
   |   6  |    6   | Echo (obsoleted by option 8)       | RFC 1072 |     |
   |   7  |    6   | Echo Reply (obsoleted by option 8) | RFC 1072 |     |
   |   8  |   10   | TSopt - Time Stamp Option          | RFC 1323 |  *  |
   |   9  |    2   | Partial Order Connection Permitted | RFC 1693 |     |
   |  10  |    3   | Partial Order Service Profile      | RFC 1693 |     |
   |  11  |    6   | CC                                 | RFC 1644 |     |
   |  12  |    6   | CC.NEW                             | RFC 1644 |     |
   |  13  |    6   | CC.ECHO                            | RFC 1644 |     |
   |  14  |    3   | Alternate Checksum Request         | RFC 1146 |     |
   |  15  |    N   | Alternate Checksum Data            | RFC 1146 |     |
   |  16  |        | Skeeter                            |          |     |
   |  17  |        | Bubba                              |          |     |
   |  18  |    3   | Trailer Checksum Option            |          |     |
   |  19  |   18   | MD5 Signature Option               | RFC 2385 |     |
   |  20  |        | SCPS Capabilities                  |          |     |
   |  21  |        | Selective Negative Acks            |          |     |
   |  22  |        | Record Boundaries                  |          |     |



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   |  23  |        | Corruption experienced             |          |     |
   |  24  |        | SNAP                               |          |     |
   |  25  |        | Unassigned (released 12/18/00)     |          |     |
   |  26  |        | TCP Compression Filter             |          |     |
   +------+--------+------------------------------------+----------+-----+

                     Figure 12: Common TCP Options

    The 'use' column is marked with '*' to indicate those options that
   are most likely to be seen in TCP flows.

4.3.2  Option field behavior

   Generally speaking all option fields have been classified as
   changing.  This section describes the behavior of each option
   referenced within an RFC, listed by 'kind' indicator.
      0.  End of option list
         This option code indicates the end of the option list.  This
         might not coincide with the end of the TCP header according to
         the Data Offset field.  This is used at the end of all options,
         not the end of each option, and need only be used if the end of
         the options would not otherwise coincide with the end of the
         TCP header.  Defined in RFC 793 [2].
         There is no data associated with this option, a compression
         scheme must simply be able to encode its presence.  However,
         note that since this options marks the end of the list and the
         TCP options are 4-octet aligned, there may be octets of padding
         (defined to be '0' in [2]) after this option.
      1.  No-Operation
         This option code may be used between options, for example, to
         align the beginning of a subsequent option on a word boundary.
         There is no guarantee that senders will use this option, so
         receivers must be prepared to process options even if they do
         not begin on a word boundary RFC 793 [2].
         There is no data associated with this option, a compression
         scheme must simply be able to encode its presence.
         This may be done by noting that the option simply maintains a
         certain alignment and that compression need only convey this
         alignment.  In this way, padding can just be removed.
      2.  Maximum Segment Size
         If this option is present, then it communicates the maximum
         segment size that may be used to send a packet to this
         end-host.  This field must only be sent in the initial
         connection request (i.e., in segments with the SYN control bit
         set).  If this option is not used, any segment size is allowed
         RFC 793 [2].
         This option is very common.  The segment size is a 16-bit
         quantity.  Theoretically this could take any value, however



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         there are a number of values that are more common.  For
         example, 1460 bytes is very common for TCP/IPv4 over Ethernet
         (though with the increased prevalence of tunnels, for example,
         smaller values such as 1400 have become more popular).  536
         bytes is the default MSS value.  This may allow for common
         values to be encoded more efficiently.
      3.  Window Scale Option (WSopt)
         This option may be sent in a SYN segment by the TCP end-host:
            (1)  to indicate that the sending TCP end-host is prepared
            to perform both send and receive window scaling, and
            (2)  to communicate a scale factor to be applied to its
            receive window.
         The scale factor is encoded logarithmically, as a power of 2
         (presumably to be implemented by binary shifts).  Note: the
         window in the SYN segment itself is never scaled RFC 1072 [4].
         This option may be sent in an initial segment (i.e., a segment
         with the SYN bit on and the ACK bit off).  It may also be sent
         in a segment, but only if a Window Scale option was received in
         the initial segment.  A Window Scale option in a segment
         without a SYN bit should be ignored.  The Window field in a SYN
         segment itself is never scaled RFC 1323 [7]
         The use of window scaling does not affect the encoding of any
         other field during the life-time of the flow.  It is only the
         encoding of the window scaling option itself that is important.
         The window scale must be between 0 and 14 (inclusive).
         Generally smaller values would be expected (a window scale of
         14 allows for a 1Gbyte window, which is extremely large).
      4.  SACK-Permitted
         This option may be sent in a SYN by a TCP that has been
         extended to receive (and presumably process) the SACK option
         once the connection has opened RFC 2018 [13].
         There is no data in this option, all that is required is for
         the presence of the option to be encoded.
      5.  SACK
         This option is to be used to convey extended acknowledgment
         information over an established connection.  Specifically, it
         is to be sent by a data receiver to inform the data transmitter
         of non- contiguous blocks of data that have been received and
         queued.  The data receiver is awaiting the receipt of data in
         later retransmissions to fill the gaps in sequence space
         between these blocks.
         At that time, the data receiver will acknowledge the data
         normally by advancing the left window edge in the
         Acknowledgment Number field of the TCP header.  It is important
         to understand that the SACK option will not change the meaning
         of the Acknowledgment Number field, whose value will still
         specify the left window edge, i.e., one byte beyond the last
         sequence number of fully-received data RFC 2018 [13].



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         If SACK has been negotiated (through an exchange of SACK-
         Permitted options), then this option may occur when dropped
         segments are noticed by the receiver.  Because this identifies
         ranges of blocks within the receiver's window, this can be
         viewed as a base value with a number of offsets.  The base
         value (left edge of the first block) can be viewed as offset
         from the TCP acknowledgement number.  There can be up to 4 SACK
         blocks in a single option.  SACK blocks may occur in a number
         of segments (if there is more out-of-order data 'on the wire')
         and this will typically extend the size of or add to the
         existing blocks.
         Alternative proposals such as DSACK RFC 2883 [19] do not
         fundamentally change the behavior of the SACK block, from the
         point of view of the information contained within it.
      6.  Echo
         This option carries information that the receiving TCP may send
         back in a subsequent TCP Echo Reply option (see below).  A TCP
         may send the TCP Echo option in any segment, but only if a TCP
         Echo option was received in a SYN segment for the connection.
         When the TCP echo option is used for RTT measurement, it will
         be included in data segments, and the four information bytes
         will define the time at which the data segment was transmitted
         in any format convenient to the sender RFC 1072 [4].
         The Echo option is generally not used in practice -- it is
         obsoleted by the Timestamp option.  However, for transparency
         it is desirable that a compression scheme be able to transport
         it.  (However, there is no benefit in attempting any more
         sophisticated treatment than viewing it as a generic 'option').
      7.  Echo Reply
         A TCP that receives a TCP Echo option containing four
         information bytes will return these same bytes in a TCP Echo
         Reply option.  This TCP Echo Reply option must be returned in
         the next segment (e.g., an ACK segment) that is sent.  If more
         than one Echo option is received before a reply segment is
         sent, the TCP must choose only one of the options to echo,
         ignoring the others; specifically, it must choose the newest
         segment with the oldest sequence number (see RFC 1072 [4]).
         The Echo option is generally not used in practice -- it is
         obsoleted by the Timestamp option.  However, for transparency
         it is desirable that a compression scheme be able to transport
         it.  (However, there is no benefit in attempting any more
         sophisticated treatment than viewing it as a generic 'option').
      8.  Timestamps
         This option carries two four-byte timestamp fields.  The
         Timestamp Value field (TSval) contains the current value of the
         timestamp clock of the TCP sending the option.  The Timestamp
         Echo Reply field (TSecr) is only valid if the ACK bit is set in
         the TCP header; if it is valid, it echoes a timestamp value



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         that was sent by the remote TCP in the TSval field of a
         Timestamps option.  When TSecr is not valid, its value must be
         zero.  The TSecr value will generally be from the most recent
         Timestamp option that was received; however, there are
         exceptions that are explained below.  A TCP may send the
         Timestamps option (TSopt) in an initial segment (i.e., segment
         containing a SYN bit and no ACK bit), and may send a TSopt in
         other segments only if it received a TSopt in the initial
         segment for the connection RFC 1323 [7].
         Timestamps are quite commonly used.  If timestamp options are
         exchanged in the connection set-up phase, then they are
         expected to appear on all subsequent segments.  If this
         exchange does not happen, then they will not appear for the
         remainder of the flow.
         Because the value being carried is a timestamp, it is logical
         to expect that the entire value need not be carried.  There is
         no obvious pattern of increments that might be expected,
         however.
         An important reason for using the timestamp option is to allow
         detection of sequence space wrap-around (Protection Against
         Wrapped Sequence-number, or PAWS RFC 1323 [7]).  It is not
         expected that this is a serious concern on the links that TCP
         header compression would be deployed on, but it is important
         that the integrity of this option is maintained.  This issue is
         discussed in, for example, RFC 3150 [37].  However, the
         proposed Eifel algorithm [40] makes use of timestamps and so,
         currently, it is recommended that timestamps are used for
         cellular-type links [39].
         With regard to compression, it is further noted that the range
         of resolutions for the timestamp suggested in RFC 1323 [7] is
         quite wide (1ms to 1s per 'tick').  This (along with the
         perhaps wide variation in RTT) makes it hard to select a set of
         encodings that will be optimal in all cases.
      9.  Partial Order Connection (POC) permitted
         This option represents a simple indicator communicated between
         the two peer transport entities to establish the operation of
         the POC protocol RFC 1693 [9]
         The Partial Order Connection option sees little (or no) use in
         the current Internet and so the only requirement is that the
         header compression scheme should be able to encode it.
      10.  POC service profile
         This option serves to communicate the information necessary to
         carry out the job of the protocol -- the type of information
         that is typically found in the header of a TCP segment.
         The Partial Order Connection option sees little (or no) use in
         the current Internet and so the only requirement is that the
         header compression scheme should be able to encode it.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


      11.  Connection Count (CC)
         This option is part of the implementation of TCP Accelerated
         Open (TAO) that effectively bypasses the TCP Three-Way
         Handshake (3WHS).  TAO introduces a 32-bit incarnation number,
         called a "connection count" (CC) that is carried in a TCP
         option in each segment.  A distinct CC value is assigned to
         each direction of an open connection.  The implementation
         assigns monotonically increasing CC values to successive
         connections that it opens actively or passively RFC 1644 [8].
         This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet,
         and so the only requirement is that the header compression
         scheme should be able to encode it.
      12.  CC.NEW
         Correctness of the TAO mechanism requires that clients generate
         monotonically increasing CC values for successive connection
         initiations.  Receiving a CC.NEW causes the server to
         invalidate its cache entry and do a 3WHS.  RFC 1644 [8].
         This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet,
         and so the only requirement is that the header compression
         scheme should be able to encode it.
      13.  CC.ECHO
         When a server host sends a segment, it echoes the connection
         count from the initial in a CC.ECHO option, which is used by
         the client host to validate the segment RFC 1644 [8].
         This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet,
         and so the only requirement is that the header compression
         scheme should be able to encode it.
      14.  Alternate Checksum Request
         This option may be sent in a SYN segment by a TCP to indicate
         that the TCP is prepared to both generate and receive checksums
         based on an alternate algorithm.  During communication, the
         alternate checksum replaces the regular TCP checksum in the
         checksum field of the TCP header.  Should the alternate
         checksum require more than 2 octets to transmit, the checksum
         may either be moved into a TCP Alternate Checksum Data Option
         and the checksum field of the TCP header be sent as 0, or the
         data may be split between the header field and the option.
         Alternate checksums are computed over the same data as the
         regular TCP checksum RFC 1146 [5]
         This option sees little (or no) use in the current Internet,
         and so the only requirement is that the header compression
         scheme should be able to encode it.  It would only occur in
         connection set-up (SYN) packets.
         Even if this option were used, it would not affect the handling
         of the checksum, since this should be carried transparently in
         any case.
      15.  Alternate Checksum Data




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         This field is used only when the alternate checksum that is
         negotiated is longer than 16 bits.  These checksums will not
         fit in the checksum field of the TCP header and thus at least
         part of them must be put in an option.  Whether the checksum is
         split between the checksum field in the TCP header and the
         option or the entire checksum is placed in the option is
         determined on a checksum by checksum basis.  The length of this
         option will depend on the choice of alternate checksum
         algorithm for this connection RFC 1146 [5].
         If an alternative checksum were negotiated in the connection
         set-up, then this option may appear on all subsequent packets
         (if needed to carry the checksum data).  However, this option
         is in practice never seen, and so the only requirement is that
         the header compression scheme should be able to encode it.
      16.  -- 18.
         Are non-RFC references and are not considered in this document.
      19.  MD5 Digest
         Every segment sent on a TCP connection to be protected against
         spoofing will contain the 16-byte MD5 digest produced by
         applying the MD5 algorithm to a concatenated block of data.
         Upon receiving a signed segment, the receiver must validate it
         by calculating its own digest from the same data (using its own
         key) and comparing the two digest.  A failing comparison must
         result in the segment being dropped and must not produce any
         response back to the sender.  Logging the failure is probably
         advisable.
         Unlike other TCP extensions (e.g., the Window Scale option
         [7]), the absence of the option in the SYN-ACK segment must not
         cause the sender to disable its sending of signatures.  This
         negotiation is typically done to prevent some TCP
         implementations from misbehaving upon receiving options in
         non-SYN segments.  This is not a problem for this option, since
         the SYN-ACK sent during connection negotiation will not be
         signed and will thus be ignored.  The connection will never be
         made, and non-SYN segments with options will never be sent.
         More importantly, the sending of signatures must be under the
         complete control of the application, not at the mercy of the
         remote host not understanding the option.
         MD5 digest information should, like any cryptographically
         secure data, be incompressible.  Therefore the compression
         scheme must simply transparently carry this option, if it
         occurs.
      20.  -- 26.
         Are non-RFC references and are not considered in this document.
         This only means that their behavior is not described in detail
         as a compression scheme is not expected to be optimised for
         these options.  However any unrecognised option must be
         transparently carried by a TCP compression scheme in order to



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         work efficiently in the presence of new or rare options.

   The above list covers options known at the time of writing.  Other
   options are expected to be defined.  It is important that any future
   options can be handled by a header compression scheme.  The
   processing of as yet undefined options cannot be optimised but, at
   the very least, unknown options should be carried transparently.

   The current model for TCP options is that an option is negotiated in
   the SYN exchange and used thereafter, if the negotiation succeeds.
   This leads to some assumptions about the presence of options (being
   only on packets with the SYN flag set, or appearing on every packet,
   for example).  Where such assumptions hold true, it may be possible
   to optimise compression of options slightly.  However, it is seen as
   undesirable to be so constrained, as there is no guarantee that
   option handling and negotiation will remain the same in the future.
   Also note that a compressor may not process the SYN packets of a flow
   and cannot, therefore, be assumed to know which options have been
   negotiated.

5.  Other observations

5.1  Implicit acknowledgements

   There may be a small number of cues for 'implicit acknowledgements'
   in a TCP flow.  Even if the compressor only sees the data transfer
   direction, for example, then seeing a packet without the SYN flag set
   implies that the SYN packet has been received.

   There is a clear requirement for the deployment of compression to be
   topologically independent.  This means that it is not actually
   possible to be sure that seeing a data packet at the compressor
   guarantees that the SYN packet has been correctly received by the
   decompressor (as the SYN packet may have taken an alternative path).

   However, it may be that there are other such cues that may be used in
   certain circumstances to improve compression efficiency.

5.2  Shared data

   It can be seen that there are two distinct deployments (i) where the
   forward (data) and reverse (ACK) path are both carried over a common
   link; and (ii) where the forward (data) and reverse (ACK) path are
   carried over different paths, with a specific link carrying packets
   corresponding to only one direction of communication.

   In the former case a compressor and decompressor could be co-located.
   It may then be possible for the compressor and decompressor at each



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   end of the link to exchange information.  This could lead to possible
   optimizations.

   For example, acknowledgement numbers are generally taken from the
   sequence numbers in the opposite direction.  Since an acknowledgement
   cannot be generated for a packet that has not passed across the link,
   this offers an efficient way of encoding acknowledgements.

5.3  TCP header overhead

   For a TCP bulk data-transfer the overhead of the TCP header does not
   form a large proportion of the data packet (e.g.  <3% for a 1460
   octet packet) particularly compared to the typical RTP voice case.
   Spectral efficiency is clearly an important goal.  However,
   extracting every last bit of compression gain offers only marginal
   benefit at a considerable cost in complexity.  This trade-off, of
   efficiency and complexity, must be addressed in the design of a TCP
   compression profile.

   However, in the acknowledgement direction (i.e.  for 'pure'
   acknowledgement headers) the overhead could be said to be infinite
   (since there is no data being carried).  This is why optimizations
   for the acknowledgement path may be considered useful.

   There are a number of schemes for manipulating TCP acknowledgements
   to reduce the ACK bandwidth.  Many of these are documented in [38]
   and [37].  Most of these schemes are entirely compatible with header
   compression, without requiring any particular support from either.
   While it is not expected that a compression scheme will be optimised
   for experimental options, it is useful that these be considered when
   developing header compression schemes, and vice versa.  A header
   compression scheme must be able to support any option (including ones
   as yet undefined).

5.4  Field independence and packet behavior

   It should be apparent that direct comparisons with the highly
   'packet' based view of RTP compression are hard.  RTP header fields
   tend to change regularly per-packet and many fields (IPv4 IP ID, RTP
   sequence number and RTP timestamp, for example) typically change in a
   dependent manner.  However, TCP fields, such as sequence number tend
   to change more unpredictably, partly because of the influence of
   external factors (size of TCP windows, application behavior, etc.)
   Also, the field values tend to change indpendently.  Overall, this
   makes compression more challenging and makes it harder to select a
   set of encodings that can successfully trade-off efficiency and
   robustness.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


5.5  Short-lived flows

   It is hard to see what can be done to improve performance for a
   single, unpredictable, short-lived connection.  However, there are
   commonly cases where there will be multiple TCP connections between
   the same pair of hosts.  As a particular example, consider web
   browsing (this is more the case with HTTP/1.0 [27] than HTTP/1.1
   [31]).

   When a connection closes, it is either the last connection between
   that pair of hosts or it is likely that another connection will open
   within a relatively short space of time.  In this case, the IP header
   part of the context (i.e.  those fields characterised in Section 2.1)
   will probably be almost identical.  Certain aspects of the TCP
   context may also be similar.

   Support for context replication is discussed in more detail in
   Section 3.  Overall, support for sub-context sharing, or initializing
   one context from another offers useful optimizations for a sequence
   of short-lived connections.

   It is noted that although TCP is connection oriented, it is hard for
   a compressor to tell whether or not a TCP flow has finished.  For
   example, even in the 'bi-directional' link case, seeing a FIN and the
   ACK of the FIN at the compressor/decompressor does not mean that the
   FIN cannot be retransmitted.  Thus it may be more useful to think
   about initializing a new context from an existing one, rather than
   re-using an existing one.

   As mentioned previously, in Section 4.1.3, the IP header can clearly
   be shared between any transport-layer flows between the same two
   end-points.  There may be limited scope for initialisation of a new
   TCP header from an existing one.  The port numbers are the most
   obvious starting point.

5.6  Master Sequence Number

   As pointed out earlier in Section 4.1.3 there is no obvious candidate
   for a 'master sequence number' in TCP.  Moreover, it is noted that
   such a master sequence number is only required to allow a
   decompressor to acknowledge packets in bi-directional mode.  It can
   also be seen that such a sequence number would not be required for
   every packet.

   While the sequence number only needs to be 'sparse', it is clear that
   there is a requirement for an explicitly added sequence number.
   There are no obvious ways of guaranteeing the unique identity of a
   packet other than by adding such a sequence number (sequence and



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


   acknowledgement numbers can both remain the same, for example).

5.7  Size constraint for TCP options

   As can be seen from the above analysis, most TCP options, such as
   MSS, WSopt, SACK-Permitted, may appear only on a SYN segment.  Every
   implementation should (and we expect that most will) ignore unknown
   options on SYN segments.  TCP options will be sent on non-SYN
   segments only when an exchange of options on the SYN segments has
   indicated that both sides understand the extension.  Other TCP
   options, such as MD5 Digest, Timestamp also tend to be sent when the
   connection is initiated (i.e.  in the SYN packet).

   The total header size is also an issue.  The TCP header specifies
   where segment data starts with a 4-bit field which gives the total
   size of the header (including options) in 32-bit words.  This means
   that the total size of the header plus option must be less than or
   equal to 60 bytes -- this leaves 40 bytes for options.

6.  Security considerations

   Since this document only describes TCP field behavior there are no
   direct security concerns raised by it.

   This memo is intended to be used to aid the compression of TCP/IP
   headers.  Where authentication mechanisms such as IPsec AH [25] are
   used, it is important that compression is transparent.  Where
   encryption methods such as IPsec ESP [26] are used, the TCP fields
   may not be visible, preventing compression.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Many IP and TCP RFCs (hopefully all of which have been collated
   below) have been sources of ideas and knowledge, together with header
   compression schemes from RFC 1144, RFC 2509 and RFC 3095, and of
   course the detailed analysis of RTP/UDP/IP in RFC 3095.

   This draft also benefited from discussion on the rohc mailing list
   and in various corridors (virtual or otherwise) about many key
   issues; special thanks to Qian Zhang, Carsten Bormann and Gorry
   Fairhurst.

   Qian Zhang and Hongbin Liao contributed the extensive analysis of
   shareable header fields.

   Any remaining misrepresentation or misinterpretation of information
   is entirely the fault of the authors.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


8.  References

8.1  Normative References

   [1]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
         1981.

   [2]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
         September 1981.

   [3]   Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", RFC
         896, January 1984.

   [4]   Jacobson, V. and R. Braden, "TCP extensions for long-delay
         paths", RFC 1072, October 1988.

   [5]   Zweig, J. and C. Partridge, "TCP alternate checksum options",
         RFC 1146, March 1990.

   [6]   Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
         November 1990.

   [7]   Jacobson, V., Braden, B. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for
         High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

   [8]   Braden, B., "T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions
         Functional Specification", RFC 1644, July 1994.

   [9]   Connolly, T., Amer, P. and P. Conrad, "An Extension to TCP :
         Partial Order Service", RFC 1693, November 1994.

   [10]  Bellovin, S., "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks", RFC
         1948, May 1996.

   [11]  McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for
         IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [12]  Stevens, W., "TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast
         Retransmit, and Fast Recovery Algorithms", RFC 2001, January
         1997.

   [13]  and, M., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP Selective
         Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.

   [14]  Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
         Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.

   [15]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
         IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.

   [16]  Ramakrishnan, K. and S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit
         Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January 1999.

   [17]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
         Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
         September 2001.

   [18]  Allman, M., Paxson, V. and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
         Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.

   [19]  Floyd, S., Mahdavi, J., Mathis, M. and M. Podolsky, "An
         Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for
         TCP", RFC 2883, July 2000.

   [20]  Spring, N., Wetherall, D. and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
         Congestion Notification (ECN)  Signaling with Nonces", RFC
         3540, June 2003.

8.2  Informative References

   [21]  IANA, "IANA", IANA TCP options, February 1998,
         <http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters>.

   [22]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
         Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [23]  Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial
         links", RFC 1144, February 1990.

   [24]  Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite",
         RFC 1349, July 1992.

   [25]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402,
         November 1998.

   [26]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload
         (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [27]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext
         Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.

   [28]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
         BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [29]  Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667,



West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


         February 2004.

   [30]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology",
         BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.

   [31]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H. and T.
         Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC
         2068, January 1997.

   [32]  Degermark, M., Nordgren, B. and S. Pink, "IP Header
         Compression", RFC 2507, February 1999.

   [33]  Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for
         Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February 1999.

   [34]  Engan, M., Casner, S. and C. Bormann, "IP Header Compression
         over PPP", RFC 2509, February 1999.

   [35]  Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
         Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37,
         RFC 2780, March 2000.

   [36]  Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
         Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K.,
         Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T.,
         Yoshimura, T. and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC):
         Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed",
         RFC 3095, July 2001.

   [37]  Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M. and V. Magret,
         "End-to-end Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48,
         RFC 3150, July 2001.

   [38]  Balakrishnan, Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G. and M.
         Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path
         Asymmetry", RFC 3449, December 2002.

   [39]  Inamura, H., Montenegro, G., Ludwig, R., Gurtov, A. and F.
         Khafizov, "TCP over Second (2.5G) and Third (3G) Generation
         Wireless Networks", RFC 3481, February 2003.

   [40]  Ludwig, R. and M. Meyer, "The Eifel Detection Algorithm for
         TCP", RFC 3522, April 2003.

   [41]  Karn, Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D., Ludwig, R.,
         Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J. and L. Wood, "Advice for
         Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, RFC 3819, July 2004.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


Authors' Addresses

   Mark A. West
   Siemens/Roke Manor Research
   Roke Manor Research Ltd.
   Romsey, Hants  SO51 0ZN
   UK

   Phone: +44 (0)1794 833311
   EMail: mark.a.west@roke.co.uk
   URI:   http://www.roke.co.uk


   Stephen McCann
   Siemens/Roke Manor Research
   Roke Manor Research Ltd.
   Romsey, Hants  SO51 0ZN
   UK

   Phone: +44 (0)1794 833341
   EMail: stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk
   URI:   http://www.roke.co.uk





























West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft           TCP/IP Field Behavior              October 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




West & McCann            Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 42]


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