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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-bormann-6lo-ghc

6LoWPAN Working Group                                         C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 26, 2012
Expires: September 27, 2012


    6LoWPAN Generic Compression of Headers and Header-like Payloads
                      draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-04

Abstract

   This short I-D provides a simple addition to 6LoWPAN Header
   Compression that enables the compression of generic headers and
   header-like payloads, without a need to define a new header
   compression scheme for each new such header or header-like payload.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  The Header Compression Coupling Problem  . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  6LoWPAN-GHC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Integrating 6LoWPAN-GHC into 6LoWPAN-HC  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Compressing payloads (UDP and ICMPv6)  . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Compressing extension headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Indicating GHC capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Using the 6CIO Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix B.  Things we probably won't do . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     B.1.  Context References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     B.2.  Nibblecode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24





























Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


1.  Introduction

1.1.  The Header Compression Coupling Problem

   6LoWPAN-HC [RFC6282] defines a scheme for header compression in
   6LoWPAN [RFC4944] packets.  As with most header compression schemes,
   a new specification is needed for every new kind of header that needs
   to be compressed.  In addition, [RFC6282] does not define an
   extensibility scheme like the ROHC profiles defined in ROHC [RFC3095]
   [RFC5795].  This leads to the difficult situation that 6LoWPAN-HC
   tended to be reopened and reexamined each time a new header receives
   consideration (or an old header is changed and reconsidered) in the
   6LoWPAN/roll/CoRE cluster of IETF working groups.  While [RFC6282]
   finally got completed, the underlying problem remains unsolved.

   The purpose of the present contribution is to plug into [RFC6282] as
   is, using its NHC (next header compression) concept.  We add a
   slightly less efficient, but vastly more general form of compression
   for headers of any kind and even for header-like payloads such as
   those exhibited by routing protocols, DHCP, etc.  The objective is an
   extremely simple specification that can be defined on a single page
   and implemented in a small number of lines of code, as opposed to a
   general data compression scheme such as that defined in [RFC1951].

1.2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
   "octet".



















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


2.  6LoWPAN-GHC

   The format of a GHC-compressed header or payload is a simple
   bytecode.  A compressed header consists of a sequence of pieces, each
   of which begins with a code byte, which may be followed by zero or
   more bytes as its argument.  Some code bytes cause bytes to be laid
   out in the destination buffer, some simply modify some decompression
   variables.

   At the start of decompressing a header or payload within a L2 packet
   (= fragment), variables "sa" and "na" are initialized as zero.

   The code bytes are defined as follows:

   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
   | code     | Action                                      | Argument |
   | byte     |                                             |          |
   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
   | 0kkkkkkk | Append k = 0b0kkkkkkk bytes of data in the  | k bytes  |
   |          | bytecode argument (k < 96)                  | of data  |
   |          |                                             |          |
   | 1000nnnn | Append 0b0000nnnn+2 bytes of zeroes         |          |
   |          |                                             |          |
   | 10010000 | STOP code (end of compressed data, see      |          |
   |          | Section 3.2)                                |          |
   |          |                                             |          |
   | 101nssss | Set up extended arguments for a             |          |
   |          | backreference: sa += 0b0ssss000, na +=      |          |
   |          | 0b0000n000                                  |          |
   |          |                                             |          |
   | 11nnnkkk | Backreference: n = na+0b00000nnn+2; s =     |          |
   |          | 0b00000kkk+sa+n; append n bytes from        |          |
   |          | previously output bytes, starting s bytes   |          |
   |          | to the left of the current output pointer;  |          |
   |          | set sa = 0, na = 0                          |          |
   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+

   Note that the following bit combinations are reserved at this time:
   011xxxxx (possibly for Appendix B.1), and 1001nnnn (where nnnn > 0,
   possibly for Appendix B.2).

   For the purposes of the backreferences, the expansion buffer is
   initialized with the pseudo-header as defined in [RFC2460], at the
   end of which the target buffer begins.  These pseudo-header bytes are
   therefore available for backreferencing, but not copied into the
   final result.





Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


3.  Integrating 6LoWPAN-GHC into 6LoWPAN-HC

   6LoWPAN-GHC is intended to plug in as an NHC format for 6LoWPAN-HC
   [RFC6282].  This section shows how this can be done (without
   supplying the detailed normative text yet, although it could be
   implemented from this page).

3.1.  Compressing payloads (UDP and ICMPv6)

   GHC is by definition generic and can be applied to different kinds of
   packets.  All the examples given in Appendix A are for ICMPv6
   packets; a single NHC value suffices to define an NHC format for
   ICMPv6 based on GHC (see below).

   In addition it may be useful to include an NHC format for UDP, as
   many headerlike payloads (e.g., DHCPv6) are carried in UDP.
   [RFC6282] already defines an NHC format for UDP (11110CPP).  What
   remains to be done is to define an analogous NHC byte formatted, e.g.
   as shown in Figure 1, and simply reference the existing
   specification, indicating that for 0b11010cpp NHC bytes, the UDP
   payload is not supplied literally but compressed by 6LoWPAN-GHC.

                      0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                    | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | C |   P   |
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                  Figure 1: Proposed NHC byte for UDP GHC

   To stay in the same general numbering space, we propose 0b11011111 as
   the NHC byte for ICMPv6 GHC (Figure 2).

                      0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                    | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                Figure 2: Proposed NHC byte for ICMPv6 GHC

3.2.  Compressing extension headers

   If the compression of specific extension headers is considered
   desirable, this can be added in a similar way, e.g. as in Figure 3
   (however, probably only EID 0 to 3 need to be assigned).  As there is
   no easy way to extract the length field from the GHC-encoded header
   before decoding, this would make detecting the end of the extension
   header somewhat complex.  The easiest (and most efficient) approach
   is to completely elide the length field (in the same way NHC already



Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   elides the next header field in certain cases) and reconstruct it
   only on decompression.  To serve as a terminator for the extension
   header, the reserved bytecode 0b10010000 has been assigned as a stop
   marker -- this is only needed for extension headers, not for final
   payloads.

                      0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                    | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |    EID    |NH |
                    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

           Figure 3: Proposed NHC byte for extension header GHC

3.3.  Indicating GHC capability

   The 6LoWPAN baseline includes just [RFC4944], [RFC6282],
   [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd] (see [I-D.bormann-6lowpan-roadmap]).  To enable
   the use of GHC, 6LoWPAN nodes need to know that their neighbors
   implement it.  While this can also simply be administratively
   required, a transition strategy as well as a way to support mixed
   networks is required.

   One way to know a neighbor does implement GHC is receiving a packet
   from that neighbor with GHC in it ("implicit capability detection").
   However, there needs to be a way to bootstrap this, as nobody ever
   would start sending packets with GHC otherwise.

   To minimize the impact on [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd], we propose adding an
   ND option 6LoWPAN Capability Indication (6CIO), as illustrated in
   Figure 4.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |   Length = 1  |_____________________________|G|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |_______________________________________________________________|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 4: 6LoWPAN Capability Indication Option (6CIO)

   The G bit indicates whether the node sending the option is GHC
   capable.

   Once a node receives either an explicit or an implicit indication of
   GHC capability from another node, it may send GHC-compressed packets
   to that node.  Where that capability has not been recently confirmed,
   similar to the way PLPMTUD [RFC4821] finds out about changes in the



Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   network, a node SHOULD make use of NUD (neighbor unreachability
   detection) failures to switch back to basic 6LoWPAN header
   compression [RFC6282].  (Where context information is used in a
   potential future version of this specification, as in Appendix B.1,
   robustness may also be increased by making use of checksum error
   indications that might point out errors in decompression.)

3.4.  Using the 6CIO Option

   The 6CIO option will typically only be ever sent in 6LoWPAN-ND RS
   packets (it then cannot itself be GHC compressed unless the host
   desires to limit itself to talking to GHC capable routers); the
   resulting 6LoWPAN-ND RA can already make use of GHC and thus indicate
   GHC capability implicitly, which in turn allows the nodes to use GHC
   in the 6LoWPAN-ND NS/NA exchange.

   6CIO can also be used for future options that need to be negotiated
   between 6LoWPAN peers; an IANA registry will administrate the flags.
   (Bits marked by underscores in Figure 4 are reserved for future
   allocation, i.e., they MUST be sent as zero and MUST be ignored on
   reception until allocated.  Length values larger than 1 MUST be
   accepted by implementations in order to enable future extensions; the
   additional bits in the option are then reserved in the same way.  For
   the purposes of the IANA registry, the bits are numbered in msb-first
   order from the 16th bit of the option onward, i.e., the G bit is flag
   number 15.)  (Additional bits may also be used by a follow-on version
   of this document if some bit combinations that have been left
   reserved here are then used in an upward compatible manner.)

   Where the use of this option by other specifications is envisioned,
   the following items have to be kept in mind:

   o  The option can be used in any ND packet.

   o  Specific bits are set in the option to indicate that a capability
      is present in the sender.  (There may be other ways to infer this
      information, as is the case in this specification.)  Bit
      combinations may be used as desired.  The absence of the
      capability _indication_ is signaled by setting these bits to zero;
      this does not necessarily mean that the capability is absent.

   o  The intention is not to modify the semantics of the specific ND
      packet carrying the option, but to provide the general capability
      indication described above.

   o  Specifications have to be designed such that receivers that do not
      receive or do not process such a capability indication can still
      interoperate (presumably without exploiting the indicated



Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


      capability).

   o  The option is meant to be used sparsely, i.e. once a sender has
      reason to believe the capability indication has been received,
      there no longer is a need to continue sending it.














































Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


4.  IANA considerations

   [This section to be removed/replaced by the RFC Editor.]

   In the IANA registry for the "LOWPAN_NHC Header Type" (in the "IPv6
   Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters"), IANA needs to add the
   assignments in Figure 5.

       10110IIN: Extension header GHC                 [RFCthis]
       11010CPP: UDP GHC                              [RFCthis]
       11011111: ICMPv6 GHC                           [RFCthis]

                Figure 5: IANA assignments for the NHC byte

   IANA needs to allocate an ND option number for the 6CIO ND option
   format in the Registry "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats"
   [RFC4861].

   IANA needs to create a registry for "6LoWPAN capability bits" within
   the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6)
   Parameters".  The bits are allocated by giving their numbers as small
   non-negative integers as defined in section Section 3.4, preferably
   in the range 0..47.  The policy is "RFC Required" [RFC5226].  The
   initial content of the registry is as in Figure 6:

       0..14: unassigned
       15: GHC capable bit (G bit)                    [RFCthis]
       16..47: unassigned

                                 Figure 6





















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


5.  Security considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC4944] and [RFC6282] apply.  As
   usual in protocols with packet parsing/construction, care must be
   taken in implementations to avoid buffer overflows and in particular
   (with respect to the back-referencing) out-of-area references during
   decompression.

   One additional consideration is that an attacker may send a forged
   packet that makes a second node believe a third victim node is GHC-
   capable.  If it is not, this may prevent packets sent by the second
   node from reaching the third node (at least until robustness features
   such as those discussed in Section 3.3 kick in).

   No mitigation is proposed (or known) for this attack, except that a
   node that does implement GHC is not vulnerable.  However, with
   unsecured ND, a number of attacks with similar outcomes are already
   possible, so there is little incentive to make use of this additional
   attack.  With secured ND, 6CIO is also secured; nodes relying on
   secured ND therefore should use 6CIO bidirectionally (and limit the
   implicit capability detection to secured ND packets carrying GHC)
   instead of basing their neighbor capability assumptions on receiving
   any kind of unprotected packet.




























Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


6.  Acknowledgements

   Colin O'Flynn has repeatedly insisted that some form of compression
   for ICMPv6 and ND packets might be beneficial.  He actually wrote his
   own draft, [I-D.oflynn-6lowpan-icmphc], which compresses better, but
   addresses basic ICMPv6/ND only and needs a much longer spec (around
   17 pages of detailed spec, as compared to the single page of core
   spec here).  This motivated the author to try something simple, yet
   general.  Special thanks go to Colin for indicating that he indeed
   considers his draft superseded by the present one.

   The examples given are based on pcap files that Colin O'Flynn and
   Owen Kirby provided.

   Erik Nordmark provided input that helped shaping the 6CIO option.




































Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd]
              Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., and E. Nordmark, "Neighbor
              Discovery Optimization for Low Power and Lossy Networks
              (6LoWPAN)", draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              September 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bormann-6lowpan-roadmap]
              Bormann, C., "6LoWPAN Roadmap and Implementation Guide",
              draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-01 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-core-link-format]
              Shelby, Z., "CoRE Link Format",
              draft-ietf-core-link-format-11 (work in progress),
              January 2012.

   [I-D.oflynn-6lowpan-icmphc]
              O'Flynn, C., "ICMPv6/ND Compression for 6LoWPAN Networks",
              draft-oflynn-6lowpan-icmphc-00 (work in progress),
              July 2010.



Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   [RFC1951]  Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
              version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.

   [RFC3095]  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.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.

   [RFC5795]  Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust
              Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
              March 2010.



































Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


Appendix A.  Examples

   This section demonstrates some relatively realistic examples derived
   from actual PCAP dumps taken at previous interops.  Unfortunately,
   for these dumps, no context information was available, so the
   relatively powerful effect of context-based compression is not shown.
   (TBD: Add a couple DHCP examples.)

   Figure 7 shows an RPL DODAG Information Solicitation, a quite short
   RPL message that obviously cannot be improved much.

   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 08 3a ff fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 20 24 ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1a
   Payload:
    9b 00 6b de 00 00 00 00
   Pseudoheader:
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 20 24
    ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1a
    00 00 00 08 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 04 9b 00 6b de
   4 nulls: 82
   Compressed:
    04 9b 00 6b de 82
   Was 8 bytes; compressed to 6 bytes, compression factor 1.33

                      Figure 7: A simple RPL example

   Figure 8 shows an RPL DODAG Information Object, a longer RPL control
   message that is improved a bit more (but would likely benefit
   additionally from a context reference).  Note that the compressed
   output exposes an inefficiency in the simple-minded compressor used
   to generate it; this does not devalue the example since constrained
   nodes are quite likely to make use of simple-minded compressors.
















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 5c 3a ff fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23 ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1a
   Payload:
    9b 01 7a 5f 00 f0 01 00 88 00 00 00 20 02 0d b8
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 fa ce 04 0e 00 14
    09 ff 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 1e 80 20
    ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 20 02 0d b8
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 fa ce 03 0e 40 00
    ff ff ff ff 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
   Pseudoheader:
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
    ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1a
    00 00 00 5c 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 09 9b 01 7a 5f 00 f0 01 00 88
   3 nulls: 81
   copy: 04 20 02 0d b8
   7 nulls: 85
   ref(52): ff fe 00 -> ref 101nssss 0 6/11nnnkkk 1 1: a6 c9
   copy: 08 fa ce 04 0e 00 14 09 ff
   2 nulls: 80
   copy: 01 01
   7 nulls: 85
   copy: 06 08 1e 80 20 ff ff
   ref(2): ff ff -> ref 11nnnkkk 0 0: c0
   ref(4): ff ff ff ff -> ref 11nnnkkk 2 0: d0
   4 nulls: 82
   ref(48): 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 fa ce
    -> ref 101nssss 1 4/11nnnkkk 6 0: b4 f0
   copy: 03 03 0e 40
   ref(9): 00 ff -> ref 11nnnkkk 0 7: c7
   ref(28): ff ff ff -> ref 101nssss 0 3/11nnnkkk 1 1: a3 c9
   ref(24): 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    -> ref 101nssss 0 2/11nnnkkk 6 0: a2 f0
   Compressed:
    09 9b 01 7a 5f 00 f0 01 00 88 81 04 20 02 0d b8
    85 a6 c9 08 fa ce 04 0e 00 14 09 ff 80 01 01 85
    06 08 1e 80 20 ff ff c0 d0 82 b4 f0 03 03 0e 40
    c7 a3 c9 a2 f0
   Was 92 bytes; compressed to 53 bytes, compression factor 1.74

                      Figure 8: A longer RPL example








Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   Similarly, Figure 9 shows an RPL DAO message.  One of the embedded
   addresses is copied right out of the pseudoheader, the other one is
   effectively converted from global to local by providing the prefix
   FE80 literally, inserting a number of nulls, and copying (some of)
   the IID part again out of the pseudoheader.  Note that a simple
   implementation would probably emit fewer nulls and copy the entire
   IID; there are multiple ways to encode this 50-byte payload into 27
   bytes.

   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 32 3a ff 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 ff fe 00 33 44 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 ff fe 00 11 22
   Payload:
    9b 02 58 7d 01 80 00 f1 05 12 00 80 20 02 0d b8
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 33 44 06 14 00 80
    f1 00 fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00
    11 22
   Pseudoheader:
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 33 44
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 11 22
    00 00 00 32 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 0c 9b 02 58 7d 01 80 00 f1 05 12 00 80
   ref(52): 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 33 44
    -> ref 101nssss 1 4/11nnnkkk 6 4: b4 f4
   copy: 08 06 14 00 80 f1 00 fe 80
   9 nulls: 87
   ref(58): ff fe 00 11 22 -> ref 101nssss 0 6/11nnnkkk 3 5: a6 dd
   Compressed:
    0c 9b 02 58 7d 01 80 00 f1 05 12 00 80 b4 f4 08
    06 14 00 80 f1 00 fe 80 87 a6 dd
   Was 50 bytes; compressed to 27 bytes, compression factor 1.85

                       Figure 9: An RPL DAO message

















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   Figure 10 shows the effect of compressing a simple ND neighbor
   solicitation (again, no context-based compression).

   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 30 3a ff 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 ff fe 00 3b d3 fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
   Payload:
    87 00 a7 68 00 00 00 00 fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23 01 01 3b d3 00 00 00 00
    1f 02 00 00 00 00 00 06 00 1c da ff fe 00 20 24
   Pseudoheader:
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 3b d3
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
    00 00 00 30 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 04 87 00 a7 68
   4 nulls: 82
   ref(32): fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
    -> ref 101nssss 1 2/11nnnkkk 6 0: b2 f0
   copy: 04 01 01 3b d3
   4 nulls: 82
   copy: 02 1f 02
   5 nulls: 83
   copy: 02 06 00
   ref(24): 1c da ff fe 00 -> ref 101nssss 0 2/11nnnkkk 3 3: a2 db
   copy: 02 20 24
   Compressed:
    04 87 00 a7 68 82 b2 f0 04 01 01 3b d3 82 02 1f
    02 83 02 06 00 a2 db 02 20 24
   Was 48 bytes; compressed to 26 bytes, compression factor 1.85

                  Figure 10: An ND neighbor solicitation



















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   Figure 11 shows the compression of an ND neighbor advertisement.

   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 30 3a fe fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 ff fe 00 3b d3
   Payload:
    88 00 26 6c c0 00 00 00 fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23 02 01 fa ce 00 00 00 00
    1f 02 00 00 00 00 00 06 00 1c da ff fe 00 20 24
   Pseudoheader:
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 3b d3
    00 00 00 30 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 05 88 00 26 6c c0
   3 nulls: 81
   ref(48): fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 1c da ff fe 00 30 23
    -> ref 101nssss 1 4/11nnnkkk 6 0: b4 f0
   copy: 04 02 01 fa ce
   4 nulls: 82
   copy: 02 1f 02
   5 nulls: 83
   copy: 02 06 00
   ref(24): 1c da ff fe 00 -> ref 101nssss 0 2/11nnnkkk 3 3: a2 db
   copy: 02 20 24
   Compressed:
    05 88 00 26 6c c0 81 b4 f0 04 02 01 fa ce 82 02
    1f 02 83 02 06 00 a2 db 02 20 24
   Was 48 bytes; compressed to 27 bytes, compression factor 1.78

                  Figure 11: An ND neighbor advertisement




















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   Figure 12 shows the compression of an ND router solicitation.  Note
   that the relatively good compression is not caused by the many zero
   bytes in the link-layer address of this particular capture (which are
   unlikely to occur in practice): 7 of these 8 bytes are copied from
   the pseudo header (the 8th byte cannot be copied as the universal/
   local bit needs to be inverted).

   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 18 3a ff fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    ae de 48 00 00 00 00 01 ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
   Payload:
    85 00 90 65 00 00 00 00 01 02 ac de 48 00 00 00
    00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00
   Pseudoheader:
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 ae de 48 00 00 00 00 01
    ff 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
    00 00 00 18 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 04 85 00 90 65
   ref(33): 00 00 00 00 01 -> ref 101nssss 0 3/11nnnkkk 3 4: a3 dc
   copy: 02 02 ac
   ref(42): de 48 00 00 00 00 01
    -> ref 101nssss 0 4/11nnnkkk 5 3: a4 eb
   6 nulls: 84
   Compressed:
    04 85 00 90 65 a3 dc 02 02 ac a4 eb 84
   Was 24 bytes; compressed to 13 bytes, compression factor 1.85

                                 Figure 12

   Figure 13 shows the compression of an ND router advertisement.  The
   indefinite lifetime is compressed to four bytes by backreferencing;
   this could be improved (at the cost of minor additional decompressor
   complexity) by including some simple runlength mechanism.

















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   IP header:
    60 00 00 00 00 60 3a ff fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    10 34 00 ff fe 00 11 22 fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00
    ae de 48 00 00 00 00 01
   Payload:
    86 00 55 c9 40 00 0f a0 1c 5a 38 17 00 00 07 d0
    01 01 11 22 00 00 00 00 03 04 40 40 ff ff ff ff
    ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 02 40 10 00 00 03 e8
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 21 03 00 01 00 00 00 00
    20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff fe 00 11 22
   Pseudoheader:
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 34 00 ff fe 00 11 22
    fe 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 ae de 48 00 00 00 00 01
    00 00 00 60 00 00 00 3a
   copy: 0c 86 00 55 c9 40 00 0f a0 1c 5a 38 17
   2 nulls: 80
   copy: 06 07 d0 01 01 11 22
   4 nulls: 82
   copy: 06 03 04 40 40 ff ff
   ref(2): ff ff -> ref 11nnnkkk 0 0: c0
   ref(4): ff ff ff ff -> ref 11nnnkkk 2 0: d0
   4 nulls: 82
   copy: 04 20 02 0d b8
   12 nulls: 8a
   copy: 04 20 02 40 10
   ref(38): 00 00 03 -> ref 101nssss 0 4/11nnnkkk 1 3: a4 cb
   copy: 01 e8
   ref(24): 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00
    -> ref 101nssss 0 2/11nnnkkk 6 0: a2 f0
   copy: 02 21 03
   ref(84): 00 01 00 00 00 -> ref 101nssss 0 9/11nnnkkk 3 7: a9 df
   ref(40): 00 20 02 0d b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    -> ref 101nssss 1 3/11nnnkkk 2 4: b3 d4
   ref(120): ff fe 00 11 22
    -> ref 101nssss 0 14/11nnnkkk 3 3: ae db
   Compressed:
    0c 86 00 55 c9 40 00 0f a0 1c 5a 38 17 80 06 07
    d0 01 01 11 22 82 06 03 04 40 40 ff ff c0 d0 82
    04 20 02 0d b8 8a 04 20 02 40 10 a4 cb 01 e8 a2
    f0 02 21 03 a9 df b3 d4 ae db
   Was 96 bytes; compressed to 58 bytes, compression factor 1.66

                   Figure 13: An ND router advertisement







Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


Appendix B.  Things we probably won't do

   This appendix documents parts of the proposal that so far have not
   proven themselves sufficiently using real-life packets.  They may
   come back if they turn out to be useful; otherwise, they are to be
   removed on the way to RFC.

B.1.  Context References

   A previous version of GHC also allowed the use of context references.
   However, it appears that context references are more useful at the
   IPv6/NHC level than here - contexts that are useful often already
   have been unpacked into the pseudoheader, so they can be used by
   backreferences.  So none of the examples in Appendix A strongly need
   this capability.  Context references might be more useful if we find
   good ways to populate the 6LoWPAN context with certain strings that
   are likely to turn up in a certain LoWPAN.

   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
   | code     | Action                                      | Argument |
   | byte     |                                             |          |
   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+
   | 0110iiii | Append all bytes (possibly filling an       |          |
   |          | incomplete byte with zero bits) from        |          |
   |          | Context i                                   |          |
   |          |                                             |          |
   | 0111iiii | Append 8 bytes from Context i; i.e., the    |          |
   |          | context value truncated/zero-extended to 8  |          |
   |          | bytes, and then append 0000 00FF FE00       |          |
   |          | (i.e., 14 bytes total)                      |          |
   +----------+---------------------------------------------+----------+

B.2.  Nibblecode

   (It is to be decided whether the mechanism described in this section
   is worth its additional complexity.  To make this decision, it would
   be useful to obtain more packet captures, in particular those that do
   include ASCII data - the packet-capture-based examples in Appendix A
   currently do not include nibblecode.)

   Some headers/header-like structures, such as those used in CoAP or
   DNS, may use ASCII data.  There is very little redundancy by
   repetition in these (DNS actually has its own compression mechanism
   for repetition), so the backreferencing mechanism provided in the
   bytecode is not very effective.

   Efficient stateless compression for small amounts of ASCII data of
   this kind is pretty much confined to Huffman (or, for even more



Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


   complexity, arithmetic) coding.  The complexity can be reduced
   significantly by moving to n-ary Huffman coding, i.e., optimizing not
   to the bit level, but to a larger level of granularity.  Informal
   experiments by the author show that a 16ary Huffman coding is close
   to optimal at least for a small corpus of URI data.  In other words,
   basing the encoding on nibbles (4-bit half-bytes) is both nearly
   optimal and relatively inexpensive to implement.

   The actual letter frequencies that will occur in more general 6LoWPAN
   ASCII data are hard to predict.  As a first indication, the author
   has analyzed an HTTP-based URI corpus and found the following lower
   case letters to be the ASCII characters that occur with highest
   frequency: aeinorst - it is therefore most useful to compress these.

   In the encoding proposed, each byte representing one of these eight
   highly-compressed characters is represented by a single 4-bit nibble
   from the range 0x8 to 0xF.  Bytes representing printable ASCII
   characters, more specifically bytes from 0x20 to 0x7F, are
   represented by both of their nibbles.  Bytes from 0x00 to 0x1F and
   from 0x80 to 0xFF are represented by a 0x1 nibble followed by both
   nibbles of the byte.  An 0x0 nibble terminates the nibblecode
   sequence and returns to bytecode on the next byte boundary.

   The first nibble of the nibblecode is transmitted right in the "enter
   nibblecode" bytecode (0x9x - note that since it is never useful to
   immediately return to bytecode, the bytecode 0x90 is allocated for a
   different purpose).  All other nibbles of the nibblecode are
   transmitted as a sequence of bytes in most-significant-nibble-first
   order; any unused nibble in the last byte of a nibblecode sequence is
   set to 0x0.

   The encoding is summarized in Figure 14.



















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


     0                                       1
     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0   1
   +---+---+---+---+
   |      8-F      |   aeinorst
   +---+---+---+---+   89ABCDEF

   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |      2-7      |      0-F      |   other ASCII
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |       1       |      0-F      |      0-F      |   0xHH
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   +---+---+---+---+
   |       0       |   return to bytecode
   +---+---+---+---+


                    Figure 14: A nibble-based encoding

   As an example for what level of compression can be expected, the 121
   bytes of ASCII text shown in Figure 15 (taken from
   [I-D.ietf-core-link-format]) are compressed into 183 nibbles of
   nibblecode, which (including delimiter and padding overhead) need 93
   bytes, resulting in a net compression factor of 1.30.  (Note that
   RFC 4944/6LoWPAN-HC supports compression only in the first of a
   sequence of adaptation layer fragments; 93 bytes may not all fit into
   the first fragment, so any remaining payload would be sent without
   the benefit of compression.)

    <http://www.example.com/sensors/temp123>;anchor="/sensors/temp"
    ;rel=describedby,
    </t>;anchor="/sensors/temp";rel=alternate

               Figure 15: Example input text (line-wrapped)















Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 6lowpan-ghc                    March 2012


Author's Address

   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Fax:   +49-421-218-7000
   Email: cabo@tzi.org








































Bormann                Expires September 27, 2012              [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/